We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and LambdaTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The stability is good."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 22 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while LambdaTest is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Perfecto. See our BlazeMeter vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
