We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Selenium HQ 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."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."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our BlazeMeter vs. Selenium HQ 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.