We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood 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."BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"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."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Load Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0. 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 Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and RadView WebLOAD, whereas Tricentis Flood is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Flood 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.
