We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and ReadyAPI Performance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is an open-source tool that is easy to use. It can be easily integrated with multiple tools, including Selenium."
"The solution has good transition controllers and distributed testing."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"JMeter is basically the art of the entire performance testing process."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"It is cost-effective and simple to use."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"We can scale."
"If JMeter could integrate with the EPM solution, it would be great. It could also be improved by offering more integrations for security. For example, most applications are secure with OpenID Connect protocols."
"The reporting is not very good."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available."
"Apache JMeter's UI can be made more colorful."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"It is very slow sometimes."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while ReadyAPI Performance is ranked 10th in Performance Testing Tools with 7 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while ReadyAPI Performance is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Performance writes "Straightforward to install with the ability to add multiple assertions but the price is too high". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas ReadyAPI Performance is most compared with SmartBear LoadNinja. See our Apache JMeter vs. ReadyAPI Performance report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.