We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca 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."One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"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 orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"The stability is good."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"We can also create customized functions. For example, if something isn't supported in Tricentis Tosca Commander, we can create our own function to integrate it with Tosca Commander, so we can utilize it and integrate with the macros."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"The low code is the best feature."
"We like the fact that it works across mobile, desktop, web, and APIs. Due to this, the solution has a broad range of applications."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"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."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly."
"The solution is expensive."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing 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.
