We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"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."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"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."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"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."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"A lot of time you start the stress testing, and you sign the log in again, and I want to get rid of that. It's just not clear to me how to do it yet."
More Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Load Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is ranked 16th in Load Testing Tools with 3 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing 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 Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing writes "User-friendly, cheap, and quick to set up". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is most compared with Apache JMeter. See our BlazeMeter vs. Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.