We previously used LoadRunner, but we switched because the organization had an accumulated knowledge of JMeter. Nobody really knew LoadRunner. However, the biggest advantage is that it's free, and we didn't have to invest in acquiring a performance testing solution.

The reporting is better in PureLoad because it's a licensed project, but it's okay if the entire report is embedded in Excel format.

There are multiple formats, like tree format and CSV format. In CSV format, you can download your reports. By using some formulas in Excel, you can prepare a similar report. There's automation in PureLoad, but it's not really required in my projects.

In the past, I used to use various tools, primarily LoadRunner.

When I changed jobs, and the new company only used JMeter because we didn't have a license for LoadRunner, I started working with Apache JMeter.

I'm also familiar with Micro Focus LoadRunner.

We used LoadRunner before using Apache JMeter. As Apache JMeter is open source, and we only needed to test lightweight applications, we were pretty sure we wanted to go with Apache JMeter.

A few years ago, I found Apache JMeter to be a reliable tool, and while it may have changed since then, I haven't used it recently for a direct comparison. Around five years ago, I had a positive experience with Neotys, which was an excellent tool, albeit expensive. However, as its pricing is now contact-based, I'm not sure about the current costs. Additionally, I've recently explored K6, which seems promising. K6 is actively developed and evolving rapidly. It caters more to a coding-centric experience, making it favorable for developers who appreciate JavaScript-based coding without extensive installations. This tool might see significant growth in functionality in the coming years.

We tried out solutions such as LoadRunner and NeoLoad. As these were commercial tools, we settled for JMeter. Also, the reviews from those who have used the solution helped us switch to it.

We used other solutions in the past, but they were costly since they require a license, whereas Apache JMeter is free. Hence, we prefer Apace JMeter.

I used another tool like HP LoadRunner. And now it's offered by some different companies, ownership-wise, but it was long back. 

I have more experience in a tool called Web Performance Tester, but it has some limitations. For example, it doesn't support some forms. A long time ago, their support was better, but lately, their support hasn't been so good. They always ask us to switch to the consultancy service and they don't give us the solution. If we face problems, they always tell us, "Okay. You can consult us." This is not a good practice, actually.

Also, Web Performance Tester isn't well-known, so some of our clients aren't confident in it because it doesn't have a reputation.  They were more familiar with JMeter, and it's something I've used.  However, I have no problem with Web Performance Tester. It's hard to compare the two tools because it's not apples to apples. 

I joined this company in October, and they had just started using JMeter. Previously, they were using a tool that they had developed in-house. They found that JMeter has more capabilities and specificity than the tools they were using.

At that particular company, I was the one who was tasked with coming up with the solution, so that was the only one that I looked at simply because JMeter is industry standard, but at Microsoft, they wrote their own custom tools, so I used custom Microsoft tools.

We did use a different solution previously. 

Most people know JMeter more than the other tools. It's easy to learn and quick to execute. It's also open source. You can get a lot of solutions across the internet. If you are having some issue or error, somebody or the other may have faced that same issue, and he may have found out the solution. It makes troubleshooting easy, having crowdsourced troubleshooting. That was a factor in our decision-making. 

I also work with BlazeMeter.

I worked with Apache JMeter, from the beginning.

I have used Postman in collaboration with other developers. However, I prefer Jmeter only out of personal familiarity and not for any technical deficiencies of Postman.

I have used some other solution previously. However, I cannot recall the name. It was likely SoapUI. We picked up JMeter as it is free to start with and easy to pick up.

We previously used Katalon. 

I have used many similar solutions in the past such as New Relic, AppDynamics, NeoLoad, and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

JMeter is not as good as LoadRunner or NeoLoad, and it isn't as easy to use, but it's okay because there is no cost. LoadRunner is too expensive, in my opinion. NeoLoad is cheaper, although not significantly.

From what I have seen, many companies are adopting JMeter because it's free. Especially in Canada, using JMeter seems to be the new trend. Some companies are choosing NeoLoad over LoadRunner because it is easier, faster, and cheaper. Whatever they need to do can be completed quicker. The main problem with NeoLoad is that obtaining resources is harder.

Given all of the choices, my preference would be to implement NeoLoad.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

I have some experience LoadRunner, however, it is expensive for what it offers. This product is open-source which makes it affordable.

I have not used a solution previously.

We also use NeoLoad. JMeter is open-source. It suggests you need to install that and you can make the cloud as a distributor system. NeoLoad is paid. We have some licenses and discounts. We cannot use NeoLoad due to the licenses. That's why we moved the solution to JMeter which is free and open-source.

LoadRunner is one of the prominent tools. It was formerly HP, and now it is Micro Focus. It has good capabilities and features. It also has decent reporting capabilities. Because of the brand and the capability, it was probably chosen by most of the Fortune 500 clients that we work with. There are also some startup communities or organizations that ventured into other solutions, such as JMeter.

In terms of comparison, primarily, there are three to four parameters. The first one is the ease of use. The second one is about the protocols that need to be tested, whether it's web or API, HTTP, HTTPS, and all the native things. The third one is in terms of flexibility in setting it up and executing, and the fourth one is in terms of monitoring the execution and reporting pieces. Those are the key parameters for pros and cons. LoadRunner gives you a lot more capability and flexibility, but at the same time, it also consumes a lot of resources. JMeter is relatively simpler, cheaper, and easier to use.

I've used LoadRunner in the past, among other solutions. I switched to Apache because it is free. Other tools are much too expensive and can cost up to $50,000 a year if you are looking at commercial options.

Now Neoload probably the best one (better than Load runner as per my subjective perception) but it's a way too costly 

Load Runner, replaced with JMeter due to lower ROI

We were previously using LoadRunner for this project but moved to JMeter because it's a freeware testware.

We also use Postman and when it comes to making a very large request, it is the better option. It is also a user-friendly solution and you do not have to go through a lot of documents to start using it.

JMeter works better for iterative testing.

We sometimes use LoadRunner for various purposes but currently, we use JMeter 80% of the time because LoadRunner's CPU consumption becomes very high for TPS more than 5000. Also, LoadRunner is not free so we have to pay for the license. We're using it for very few projects now. JMeter can easily achieve a high TPS but LoadRunner has a lot of high-resource requirements. 

LoadRunner's advantage is that the output report is very comprehensive. JMeter reports are only good for the people who understand the detailed logs. Out-of-box, LoadRunner has nice reports and ease of execution. In JMeter, it's also simple but requires some online training or knowledge on the loader and the setup. 

I have used Micro Focus LoadRunner previously and it is better features than Apache JMeter. However, it is not free.

We have used LoadUI and SmartBear with tools like Selenium. Some of the developers, at that time, were used to JMeter and they introduced it. It is a very nice tool.

We previously used LoadRunner. We decided to switch because on LoadRunner scaling up was a problem.  We needed licenses to do so and it was becoming a problem for us to simulate the number of users we were expecting. 

Grinder. Grinder was not user friendly and had to do lot of coding and low level configurations. It was lighter than JMeter.

We previously used LoadRunner.

Previously, we were testing LoadRunner.

I have also started working with BlazeMeter. One of the differences is that the automation is not possible in BlazeMeter. However, BlazeMeters allows for the selection of different bandwidths, it takes less time to write tests, and it is more user-friendly.

Previously, we used the basic version of LoadUI. We switched because LoadUI is very expensive and Apache JMeter is free.

We tried BadBoy but it lacked features.

I have previously used NeoLoad.