We performed a comparison between Bitbar and BlazeMeter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"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."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while BlazeMeter is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto.
See our list of best Functional 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.
