BlazeMeter is user-friendly and excellent. My company prefers the licensed version of BlazeMeter, which I occasionally use for scripting and designing on the CentOS site, specifically for creating real-world scenarios.

In LoadRunner, we currently cannot create realistic user load behavior as effectively.

I use BlazeMeter occasionally, depending on the project. It's not used for everything but when necessary, especially with JMeter, for specific testing scenarios. So, my use cases depend on and vary according to the project.

In load testing, BlazeMeter is utilized to create realistic user behavior. It's particularly friendly for web LoadRunner users, providing proper pacing and timing control.

Moreover, it allows for comprehensive control over user behavior across scripts, such as ramp-up and steady-state phases, which is crucial for conducting incremental load tests and more. This level of control isn't as easily achievable with other tools, but with JMeter and BlazeMeter, it's possible.

Incremental load testing is a type of test you can perform with JMeter. It's a technique that isn't straightforward without BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter facilitates this process.

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.

This global simulation capability is a significant advantage of holding a cloud license with BlazeMeter.

We also tried the ShiftLeft testing approach with BlazeMeter.

An area for improvement could be enhancing BlazeMeter's integration with automation scripts.

It would be beneficial if BlazeMeter could support automation frameworks more effectively, including the use of Selenium scripts for both manual and automated load testing.

Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options. A lot of products are coming out, and BlazeMeter pricing is a factor.

For example, LoadStorm by Neustar is integrated with built-in APMs. It won't capture all server stats, but it will collect the minimum important aspects – CPU consumption, utilization rate, and how much a single server is being stressed. If BlazeMeter offered similar functionality, it would be fantastic.

I started using it almost four years ago and continue to use it as needed.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It's good. But one suggestion – people tend to rate based on cost these days. Because of that pricing, there are a lot of other new technologies on the market. That's why some people integrate BlazeMeter with an Application Performance Monitor (APM) tool, like Elastic Search or Elastic module. You can pull anything, even CPU utilization or memory usage, by installing agents.

It's actually really good.

BlazeMeter is a scalable product. It's user-friendly and easy to operate, which I find appealing.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

I used Micro Focus LoadRunner. I transitioned from my previous company to a different company. In my previous company, they used LoadRunner for customer projects, with a license for around 500 users.

I've faced a lot of issues with LoadRunner. Even with proper Java configuration, it throws exceptions when I run the first couple of servers. Because of that, I had to use a different VM and install everything from scratch. After that, things worked smoothly with BlazeMeter.

Additionally, I utilize JMeter for several products and Webber out of curiosity.

The setup process for BlazeMeter is simple.

The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs. However, Neustar has more reasonable pricing.

Most people don't prefer Neustar, but it is a good solution.

I specialize in load testing, so I use both LoadRunner and BlazeMeter in parallel.

I've previously worked with other tools like Neustar, where we were able to simulate load similarly. A noteworthy aspect of these tools is the ability to integrate automation scripts for load testing, which enhances their utility.

Neustar is actually replacing LoadRunner in our current environment. If we want to do both automation and load testing, I would choose Nustar. We can create Selenium scripts directly in Neustar, and automation engineers can use Selenium to create scripts that can then be called within Neustar.

BlazeMeter meets our needs well. It performs admirably for our purposes.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution to other users.

As our company wanted to use a cloud solution, we opted for BlazeMeter instead of an on-premises load generator.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports.

Integration with APM tools is an area where the product has certain shortcomings and needs improvement. Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

It has been stable so far as per our company's user's usage.

It is a scalable solution. My company does not have a high user load to deal with using the product.

Our company has not made many critical errors in getting technical support. Whatever difficulties our company has faced with the tool, we got support from online sources or through raising a ticket. Also, the response from the support team has been good.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I use JMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was user-friendly.

The solution is deployed on the browser.

The solution can be deployed in two to three days.

It is an averagely priced product. One of the reasons my company opted for the tool is because it is an averagely-priced product. Though we do have an APM tool in place, we chose BlazeMeter for cloud testing in our company.

BlazeMeter is the solution my company chose since it is the only tool we found compatible with JMeter. BlazeMeter's help-oriented resources and documentation support JMeter too extensively.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for performance testing. We create the safe to upload to BlazeMeter. Also, we can do standalone and combined load tests depending on the requirements.

BlazeMeter is quite fast and can be accessed through the web browser.

We sometimes experience downtime, but not so frequently.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

Customer support is fast.

We opted for BlazeMeter because it is accessible through the web browser.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Multiple people can focus on the same instance. If anyone wants to view the result, So it's quite easy. You don't need to share the GTL file. You can access the browser.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Whenever I am not able to record the script with the JMeter, I use BlazeMeter extensions to record the scripts. Whenever there is a need to execute something in the cloud, my company uses BlazeMeter.

There are some advantageous features that are available in BlazeMeter. The type of HTML reports that can be downloaded from BlazeMeter can be shown to the clients so that they can be provided with a clear picture in a clean way, allowing even a layperson to be able to understand the metrics our company shows with the help of BlazeMeter.

Whenever we use BlazeMeter for the ramp-up and designing the scenarios in our company, we also use JMeter or other load testing tools, which provide some convenience in areas where the granularity can be maintained in seconds. The ramp-up and ramp-down require our company to use the granularity for a few minutes, making it an area where improvements are required to be able to use the granularity in seconds. From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved.

Whenever we discuss the development stage, JMeter has plug-ins and other extensions in the area of WebSockets, and it is the same case in terms of the kind of extensions provided by JMeter that are available in LoadRunner. BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet. Decoding the scripts that contain the applications with Java Applet is not possible with BlazeMeter or even with JMeter, and it includes some Oracle and desktop applications, too.

I have experience with BlazeMeter.

I didn't get much opportunity to work on the tool, but as per my experience, I can say that BlazeMeter serves as an alternate tool whenever my company faces some hurdles or challenges with the JMeter and k6. To record the scripts, I use BlazeMeter as an extension. With BlazeMeter, it is very easy to identify if a request belongs to an application or not, and in the initial phase itself, we can neglect the requests that don't belong to the application. In BlazeMeter, depending upon the requests, users can select a particular domain.

Though the product is scalable, I found the tool to be a bit tricky while setting up the scenario for the stress test and during step-up and step-down kind of scenario setup.

I have experience with Grafana and JMeter.

Whenever a comparison is made between JMeter and BlazeMeter, there are a lot of differences one can observe. With JMeter, our company has to concentrate on the features as it is an open-source tool that works with Java. The configuration of the systems should have some high-end configuration, and the heap size depends upon the load our company uses. JMeter can be used in UI or GUI mode or in a non-GUI mode. If users have to go with a smoke test and the preparation of scripts, the GUI mode of JMeter can be used. For the actual execution of load testing, we have to go with JMeter's non-GUI mode. With the non-GUI mode, until the completion of the test, I could see the percentage of the error, but I couldn't see what kind of error was there in the application. In JMeter, I had to wait until the completion of the entire test. When we use the BlazeMeter cloud as a licensed tool in our company, we do have to deal with the setup of any configuration area. With BlazeMeter, whenever our company executes the load test, parallelly we can monitor what kind of errors we get, and if possible, we can have a word with the development team in parallel and we can solve all the issues so we don't need to wait until the completion of the tests as some of them may be longer than thirty minutes to an hour. In current situations, everything works in the cloud, and every request and every click gets counted in the cost. In BlazeMeter, there is no need to wait till completion of the one hour or until the end of the testing phase. BlazeMeter provides better reporting, but it takes much longer to do so, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. It is not always sufficient to only use BlazeMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was simple.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good.

Currently, I am looking out for Java Applet and Oracle applications. I want something that will support the load testing phase for the tools that Java Applet and Oracle support.

I rate the overall tool between six and seven out of ten.

I use BlazeMeter for the different samplers it provides.

The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two years. My company is a customer of the solution.

Right now, I don't know about the product's stability. I did not experience any downtime or performance issues with the solution.

For support, I generally use Google or other online sources.

Though I have experience with a solution from OpenText, I feel BlazeMeter is the best. The main reason my company chose BlazeMeter was because it was preferred by one of our clients.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The product's installation deployment phase

The solution can be deployed in thirty minutes.

The solution did not help save money or time, and neither did it improve security since it was mainly used in our company to deal with the network part.

I have not integrated the tool with any other solutions.

Though it is a good tool, there are certain areas where improvements are required in the product.

Compared to BlazeMeter, multiple options are available in the market for people to choose from to meet their requirements.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

My company started to use BlazeMeter since we wanted parallel runs and more penetration across teams with more ease, allowing better reporting. BlazeMeter doesn't do anything on its own since it uses the same script used in JMeter. BlazeMeter serves as a tool for orchestration, and to arrange better testing, parallel testing, and better reporting, making it easy for developers to use were some of the factors that led my company to opt for BlazeMeter.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that I like its workspace and shareability of resources, allowing multiple people to access the same scripts and use them in different environments. The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable.

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. The tool should offer some ease of use across environments.

The solution's scalability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

BlazeMeter was introduced a year ago in my new organization because we had a higher demand. My company is a customer of the product.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten since my organization is still streamlining things at our end.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Technical support doesn't respond the moment you put up a query, so it takes time to get a response from the customer support team. The support team does respond with enough information.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I used mostly commercial IT tools in my previous organization, including JMeter.

The product's deployment phase is fine and is not difficult.

I can't comment on the time taken to install the solution since our organization uses a shared installation with our enterprise account. My team didn't need to actually install the product, so we just created our workspace, and that was it.

I rate the product's price two on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. The solution is not expensive.

Maintenance-wise, the product is fine.

Based on my initial perception and initial experiences, I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

Most of my company's use cases related to the tool stem from the needs of our customers. Basically, my company deals in the area of using the tool for mimicking contact center-related scenarios. When a customer calls an agent, the tool helps check whether the agent answers the call.

Basically, my company wanted to use BlazeMeter to act as a trigger for around 1,05,000 users who communicate with each other. For the aforementioned aspect, the first option was to choose between NeoLoad and LoadRunner, while the second option was to choose BlazeMeter, which runs on the cloud. With Blazemeter, it was easy for my company to create a script and then trigger it.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good. Users can schedule BlazeMeter to run, especially when the need to build a new application comes up since it allows them to manage and know the performance parameters easily.

For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective. BlazeMeter should provide its users with a seamless experience in the area of programming. The tool should be made in such a way that in whatever scenario a need arises for it, new users should be able to use it without difficulty. It will be better if BlazeMeter can handle call scenarios using behavior-driven development, allowing technical and non-technical people to understand the tool.

The technical support team's turnaround time or response time is high, making it one of the product's shortcomings that requires improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three and a half years. I am a user of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. As BlazeMeter is a tool that allows me to trigger over 1,00,000 deployment-wise, I consider its scalability to be good.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Around five or six people in my company use BlazeMeter.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

I have experience with LoadRunner and TAF.

I rate the setup phase of BlazeMeter a seven and a half on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup process and ten is an easy setup phase.

BlazeMeter can be deployed in three to four minutes, especially if the scripts and artifacts are ready, as users may only need to push the ready artifacts into their environments to trigger the deployment process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product. The pricing part of BlazeMeter is fine, in my opinion. BlazeMeter is not a super expensive product for corporate businesses, considering that the product has evolved into a much more stable software.

Against BlazeMeter, my company had evaluated other options like NeoLoad and Visual Studio. Though all the options evaluated by my company were okay products in the market, BlazeMeter offers a more stable product. When using BlazeMeter, my company can get support and figure out areas where we lag through Google. BlazeMeter has a strong customer base.

BlazeMeter offers options like test scope that provide visibility of what a user does. Moreover, the option provides users with a crystal clear outline of every step, which consists of things like what the request is for a particular response.

Considering its load-testing capabilities, I recommend BlazeMeter to those who plan to use it. It's a good tool that anyone can use either in their production environment or before entering the production phase. The tool performs well even with real traffic while providing good scalability options to its users.

I rate the overall tool a seven and a half out of ten.

I use BlazeMeter for our WebApp Performance Desk. It helps me test web apps, APIs, databases, and mobile apps.

BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing. It means you don't have to worry about having your own devices or servers when testing web applications, as BlazeMeter provides the virtual devices you need for realistic testing.

The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three years.

BlazeMeter has been stable without downtime, and any performance issues are usually linked to the tested application, not BlazeMeter.

The product is fairly scalable.

BlazeMeter's tech support team has been excellent, providing helpful and responsive assistance through chat and email whenever we needed it. I would rate them as a nine out of ten.

I have used LoadView and it is pricier and offers its scripting tool, but it is better in some aspects. While BlazeMeter primarily uses emulators for testing, LoadView utilizes actual devices and browsers, particularly for web applications.

The initial setup is not too complex. It mainly involves configuring IP addresses and server communication, but it is a basic process similar to other tools.

BlazeMeter is more affordable than some alternatives on the market, but it is still expensive.

I would recommend giving BlazeMeter a try because they offer competitive pricing, and you can negotiate for discounts. BlazeMeter is more affordable than other products on the market but uses emulators instead of actual devices, which might be acceptable depending on your testing needs and budget.Additionally, it allows you to carry over unused virtual users to the next subscription, which can accumulate and save you money. Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as an eight out of ten.

I occasionally used BlazeMeter for load testing to get insights into log distribution and generate reports.

It is a good choice for people transitioning to cloud-based load testing tools and its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options.

Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations. Enhancements in data import/export and integration with other tools could be beneficial. Additionally, providing support for certain tools like Grafana, which some competitors offer, would be a good extension to consider.

I haven't noticed any stability issues with BlazeMeter so far.

BlazeMeter's scalability for our company depends on the cost and our testing needs. It is a complex decision since it is all about how much testing we do, for how long, and what our budget allows. It is all about finding the right balance between our requirements and affordability.

I haven't directly used BlazeMeter's technical support, but I have found that their online resources and community are quite responsive. They have a strong presence on sites like Stack Overflow, with experts who provide quick assistance.

The initial setup is fairly simple. Deploying BlazeMeter is a quick process and it takes just a couple of minutes. You need to have an account with them, upload your test scripts from your local machine, and then configure and initiate the test.

Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as an eight out of ten.

I work in a bank where we use BlazeMeter to conduct our load testing or performance testing. In our company, we utilize multiple machines, and multiple projects are hosted on BlazeMeter.

The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare. The response time and the calls we make in our company are easy to trace with the help of BlazeMeter.

There is a tab in Blazemeter named Request Stats Report where improvements are required. If I have to go and find a particular timeline, which might be in a 15 or 20-minute window, there are no places or options where I can enter the perfect or exact timelines I want to find. You have the pointers to drag from one place to another, but that doesn't give me much freedom to get or find a timeline. Basically, on a tab in Blazemeter named Request Stats Report, there should be the start time and end time. In BlazeMeter's Request Stats Report, users should have an option where they can select and manually enter the test start and test end time to get the stats for a particular time period.

Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

The load testing time in BlazeMeter is too high since, in our company, we have seen that it takes four to five minutes to do an entire load testing process, and after that, we run the tests, which is a big problem for us.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

I see certain limitations when it comes to the scalability part of BlazeMeter since, in our company, we have faced multiple interruptions, because of which we had to stop certain testing processes.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

I cannot give you an exact number related to the number of users of BlazeMeter in our company since we are just one of the teams in the company that uses the tool. I believe that around 150 to 200 people in my company use BlazeMeter.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I only have experience with BlazeMeter.

I rate the product's initial setup around seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup, and ten is an easy setup.

The time taken for the deployment of BlazeMeter varies since we have multiple types of applications in our company. If I have to deploy something on BlazeMeter, the time range for the deployment process can be somewhere between 30 to 120 minutes.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

BlazeMeter is a supportive tool in terms of the fact that it is easy to migrate from one system to another. BlazeMeter offers an easy infrastructure that allows for migration, if needed, in a well-organized manner, but it is not an optimized tool yet since I still see a lot of problems in it.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.