We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Eggplant Performance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is good."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"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 has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"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 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."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"It is not a conventional test automation tool. It uses optical character recognition (OCR) to identify objects. It makes it the best in the class."
"We don't have a big team of people that can watch the dials and check that everything is okay. We're doing a lot of the monitoring of our website and our product at the side of the desk. We need a solution that does a lot for us, and that's what Eggplant does."
"We find the solution stable and scalable."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"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."
"I'd like to see the ability to integrate the user experience through device forms like AWS device forms or source labs."
"Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Eggplant Performance is ranked 15th in Performance Testing Tools with 4 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Eggplant Performance is rated 7.8. 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 Eggplant Performance writes "Offers unique object identification, ideal for UI layer regression automation but limited scalability". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Eggplant Performance is most compared with Appium, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete. See our BlazeMeter vs. Eggplant Performance report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
