We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and CrossBrowserTesting based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"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."
"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."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"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."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
Earn 20 points
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. 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 CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs.
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.
