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.

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.

BlazeMeter is a very good tool to add users and ramp up things, making them a few of its very good features.

BlazeMeter is a very handy tool requiring drag and drop to operate., but I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter. In our company, we are mostly unable to capture logs or events with BlazeMeter. We want BlazeMeter to assimilate a mobile app, especially sincere company deals in mobile apps, and we wish to conduct testing using BlazeMeter. The solution has been good so far, but JMeter is one area that has been tricky for me since I cannot generate events.

I cannot speak about a particular weakness in the tool, but it is a tricky product since those who want to use it need to depend on another tool called JMeter. JMeter is required to get the scripts and JMX file before being able to run on BlazeMeter.

In our company, an APK is generated whenever we develop mobile apps, and when I drag and drop it as a script, a JMX file should be generated, which is a feature not included in the solution. The aforementioned area where the solution lacks can be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two months. I am currently an end user of the tool using BlazeMeter's trial version.

It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company.

It is a scalable solution, but our company currently uses the tool's free version, and we have not opted for its paid version. Considering the aforementioned fact, I can't comment on the solution's scalability though I have heard from one of my friends that the product's scalability is good.

Around 50 people can use the product in my company.

In my company, we haven't contacted the solution's technical support since we are still exploring the product as we are a startup company. We are conducting a trial of all the tools available to us so that we can choose the ones that suit our company at the end of the process.

The tool's implementation is done since my company deals more in mobile apps than web apps.

My company is a health app provider making our process or business completely different in the market. We want a product that is not an API to test the performance of our company's apps, so we consider BlazeMeter to be a good option.

My company is looking for options, like LoadRunner tools, that can be a better choice than BlazeMeter.

My company needs to search for better options since we feel that we will have around a million users once we launch our health app in India. I want a tool that can help me test the app's performance, especially if a million users are using it.

BlazeMeter is a tool that is easy to use.

Interface and report generation capabilities make the tool very handy for its users. The only tricky area in the solution is running BlazeMeter on JMeter, an open-source tool making it a very complex part for me.

There are different technical stacks in the market in which one needs to invest. After the testing phase, one may go for an expensive product in the market. Once there is a stable product in the market and the company can generate revenue, then it is feasible to go for the paid version, which is an option available in JMeter, so I can recommend it to others. BlazeMeter's paid version can be a bit expensive compared to JMeter.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

The use cases of BlazeMeter encompass a wide range of scenarios, including loop load testing for API-level, web service, or web application load testing. The primary purpose is to simulate various types of loads. For instance, if the load originates from distributed load testing, opting for a dedicated cloud solution would be advisable. This allows testing applications from diverse geographic locations and handling traffic from different tiers effectively. JAMITA cloud is particularly recommended for this situation, as it efficiently manages infrastructure interfaces and resolves technical intricacies associated with infrastructure maintenance.

It simplifies the process by emphasizing the key aspects of writing, uploading, and running scripts for testing purposes.

The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results.

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 have used BlazeMeter within the last 12 months.

BlazeMeter is a highly scalable solution. The solution is SaaS and the cloud vendor controls the scalability.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of BlazeMeter is straightforward.

I rate BlazeMeter an eight out of ten.

I'm working for a telecommunications client. We are using BlazeMeter's Mock Services as a priority for performance testing, along with API monitoring. These functions are each used on different projects.

One of the projects for this client is completely based on Mock Services and, with the help of that functionality, we are able to complete end-to-end testing with all the dependent components.

There are third-company suppliers who provide components that need to be tested, but most of the time we do not get those components on time. Normally, we would wait until the development is completed and only then go for automation. But now, with the help of the Mock Services, once we get the source code, we upload it directly into the Mock Services and into the API monitoring. Once we get the tracers, we are ready to point to the actual instances and test things immediately. By the time we get to that stage, we are ready for the market. That means that even before getting the complete component, we can start working with something. There is no need to wait. As a result of the Mock Services, the time it takes us to develop API automation is minimized.

Also, we had a number of performance testing tools, but we had to integrate third-party applications for generating reports. That was a pain point for us when it came to showcasing things to stakeholders so that they could be aware of what was happening. But now, everything is available once the performance testing is completed. We can immediately see the reports, and when a test is running, I can share the execution page with anyone else, as a link. That means they can view exactly what is happening, moment by moment, regarding the response time, request time, and latency. That feature is not available in some of the other applications and possibly not in any of the other applications.

One of the areas that BlazeMeter benefits us is our test cycle times. In the past, if there was a defect with a component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. And even though we were not testing that particular component, because of the dependency of that component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. If it ended up going beyond the deadline for the release cycle, we would leave that test case for the next release.

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. In that way, we are able to reduce our cycle times. In addition, we have some physical devices and network devices in our testing. It takes a week to create physical devices in a virtual way. Instead, with the Mock Services we are creating them in a minute, and that helps our end-to-end testing to be completed on time. The benefit of BlazeMeter's Mock Services is that it takes us through our testing early in the cycle.

In a single line of business, in a particular call flow, if we have 1,000 test cases per release, 100 to 200 of them are with the help of the Mock Services. That saves us time, money, and manpower.

And before we had BlazeMeter's API monitoring, if there were 10 components and anything was down, we would not be aware. We would not send a heartbeat every second to all of the components to check whether they were down or up. The API monitoring is a real benefit for us because we are able to schedule it for every 30 minutes or every hour, and we can keep on monitoring a component. If there is a failure, we will immediately be notified by email, even on the weekend. We can take action and report the situation to the data analyst and to the component people so that they can immediately work on fixing it.

The API monitoring is one of the most excellent tools we have come across because of the scheduling and the results. We are able to analyze how stable a component is based on that monitoring.

The most valuable features for us are the API monitoring and the Mock Services.

Another good thing is that we can upload JMX files and schedule and monitor performance testing. We are able to share results and see reports that we can't get in JMeter. In that way, the performance testing is good.

In terms of the range of test tools, when there are API calls we can do automation testing, functional testing, performance testing, and use the Mock Services to create a situation that the APIs are down. We are able to handle everything that has to do with APIs. Whatever we have to test—the functionality, the behavior—we are able to do so with the help of BlazeMeter.

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.

I don't think they can reduce that time because that's the functionality they have implemented in our BlazeMeter performance testing. But it's a pain point whenever we are running performance testing in a call or a demo, as well as in our live testing when all the business people are there.

The first time I run a given test, if it takes three minutes to download onto my server that's understandable. But every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again, because once the test is completed the files that were downloaded are removed. That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again.

We also had a call last week regarding secret keys. In JMX we have some Backend Listeners, such as Kibana, and there are usernames and passwords for them that we have to manually enter. When we upload the JMX file into BlazeMeter for performance testing, the usernames and passwords are viewable. Anyone who has access to BlazeMeter can download the JMX file and the usernames and passwords are visible to all those people. That's an issue with the performance testing.

Also, all the competitors have MQ protocol support, which is lacking in BlazeMeter's Mock Services. Having MQ protocol support in the Mock Services would be great for us. JDBC, the database communication, is also lacking. If we had those things, we would be completely satisfied with BlazeMeter's Mock Services.

And for the API monitoring, we are missing a data-driven approach. If, for a single API call, we have 50 to 100 test cases, there should be no need for us to create multiple steps or to duplicate the test steps. Instead, if we had a data-driven approach available, we could directly add the test data into an Excel sheet and call it into the single test steps and achieve what we need to do. We have raised this concern to the Perforce team as well, and they said they are working on it.

I've been using BlazeMeter for two year.

It's stable. Sometimes we do face issues, but they are understandable things.

Every month or two months, something will happen in the back end. The UI will say, for example, that performance testing is down due to this or that reason, and that they are fixing it. Sometimes it affects our testing. We will be in a demo or in a call with our stakeholders where we are presenting and something will be down.

We will raise a support ticket and they will say they are analyzing it and fixing it. They won't take much time, but at that time, it's a pain point. But it happens in all tools. Because it is a cloud tool it's expected, but it's not happening very frequently, so we are happy with it.

We have weekly calls with the BlazeMeter support team, and that's a great thing. During those calls they will ask if there are any issues and whether we need something resolved. If we raise any concerns, they immediately help us during that call. If not, they will ask us to raise a ticket and they follow up on it on both sides—on the support side and with us. They will give us updates. I haven't seen any other companies do that. I have been amazed with the basic support.

We also get weekly updates on whatever the roadmap contains and the new features they are going to be implementing. If we have any doubts we address them in the call. We are using some other tools, but we haven't seen this much support from any other company. When it comes to support, Perforce is the best company I have ever come across.

We haven't had a chance to use the cloud services because of security issues related to our company. We only use the on-prem server. But the cloud services are one of the best things about BlazeMeter when comparing it with its competitors.

We have older tools, like CA DevTest, that we are still using due to dependencies on JMX, MQ, and JDBC steps that are not available with BlazeMeter. With DevTest we are able to handle a lot of the custom extensions. Instead of the Mock Services, we were using the CA DevTest Service Virtualization tool. We want to move completely to BlazeMeter but we can't because of those dependencies.

Ca DevTest is the main competitor, but it doesn't have the performance testing available. Both solutions have pluses and minuses.

DevTest is hard to use. It has too many features for Service Virtualization. If a beginner is trying to learn something in DevTest, it's hard. It might take a month or two months to get some understanding of what the DevTest tool does. BlazeMeter is very simple. Even for beginners, they give some options in the Mock Services. If you're a beginner, you can create a Mock Service and it gives you a description for each and every step. This way, beginners can easily adopt BlazeMeter.

In addition to the step-by-step demos, there is the BlazeMeter University. When we onboard people into BlazeMeter, we ask them to go through those courses. For example, if we are asking them to work on API monitoring, we have them do the course on API monitoring. Once they get the certification, we have them work on the API monitoring. With the BlazeMeter University, there is no need for us to have a separate KB on how it will work or how it will respond. Onboarding people into BlazeMeter is not a problem for us.

We were using the functional testing for APIs, but it has been disabled in our organization. I asked what was the purpose of disabling it and they said it was to make sure that everyone is using the API monitoring. Although we requested that they enable it again for our purposes, so far we haven't had much chance to explore the API functional testing.

Overall, I would rate the solution at seven out of 10 because I have sent some requirements for API monitoring and performance testing on Mock Services separately, to separate teams; things that should be introduced into BlazeMeter. Until those things are available, I am not able to use some of the components