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."The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"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."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"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."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). 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.