We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and BrowserStack 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."It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"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 product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"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."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"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."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The solution is slow."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"We had some execution issues."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while BrowserStack is rated 8.0. 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 BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and SmartBear TestComplete. See our BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack report.
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.
