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 product's initial setup phase was simple."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"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."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"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."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for 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."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"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."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
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.
