Applitools vs. BlazeMeter vs. IBM DevOps Test UI

Scenarios where Applitools is well suited: Cross-browser and Cross-device Testing: Applitools shines in scenarios where applications need to be tested across multiple browsers (chrome,ie,firefox) UI Component Libraries: When working with UI component libraries or design systems, Applitools allows to capture and maintain a visual baseline for each component, Applitools may not work with highly animated sites and in non visual testing purpose

Incentivized

It is well suited for applications that are mission-critical or applications that can receive high traffic/transactions at unscheduled time periods. Using the load testing feature of BlazeMeter, we can test and ascertain the capacity of the application without the drawbacks of the usual Apache JMeter load testing which depends heavily on the host system from where the load testing is performed.

Incentivized

IBM Rational Functional Tester is good for automating thick applications.

Incentivized

• visual testing
• cross browser testing
• easy integration with testing frameworks

Incentivized

• BlazeMeter takes the .jmx script that teams had written for JMeter. The transition from JMeter to BlazeMeter was seamless.
• BlazeMeter offers its own cloud and hence we did not have to set it up on-premise.
• BlazeMeter hits our application from various geographic locations that simulates real life users.

Incentivized

• An execution log in html format provides detailed information of the actions, verifications, and screenshots with timestamps.
• Quick response and good support. IBM releases frequent updates to handle customer needs and fix issues.
• A solid object inspector, extensive functional library and playback monitor.

Incentivized

• Test Maintenance- no built-in mechanism to automatically handle dynamic or volatile elements,
• Test Configuration Flexibility- ability to specify different tolerances or thresholds for specific test elements or regions within a single test
• Test Execution Performance- larger test suites or complex visual validations can sometimes lead to longer execution times.

Incentivized

• Blazemeter reporting is very basic and shallow. There is no way to drill down or correlate. I can get better reports by using JMeter for free.
• Blazemeter is very costly. Testing with volumes of more than 1K cu is expensive, and can be done for much cheaper if a company/team is willing to invest a bit of time to figure out how to use cloud instances and jmeter slaves, and to write a basic script to collect resulting xml output.

Incentivized

• Installation or updates were not always perfect. Would have to clean previous installations or reinstall Java if there were errors.
• No or very limited support of browsers outside of Internet Explorer.
• Uses a lot of memory, can have memory issues on large tests.

Incentivized

Easy to setup to do API Performance Testing. Dashboard to showcase results Capability to showcase runtime results

Incentivized

Applitools is better than browser stack & LambdaTest as it offers AI-Powered Testing: Applitools leverages AI and machine learning algorithms to enhance its visual testing capabilities. The AI algorithms help in automatically identifying and classifying visual differences. Applitools introduces the concept of "Smart Locators," which are dynamic identifiers used to locate and identify elements in a more efficient manner.

Incentivized

In comparison with Blazemeter the closes competitor is JMeter but it has disadvantages like it is not a tool that can be use as a collaborative tool and works locally in a computer, Blazemeter is in the web so different people can access and run tests or collaborate do add, edit or delete the existent scripts.

Incentivized

Selenium is similar to IBM Rational Functional Tester but is not as user friendly and does not support thick applications. Visual Studio Coded UI is newer so not as refined; the object inspector/management and execution log results is poor compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester.

Incentivized

• cost effective
• faster delivery of product
• less error prone testing

Incentivized

• It helped positively by helping to identify the maximum capacity needed for high traffic periods
• Saved revenue by eliminating unwanted duplication of systems

Incentivized

• Speeds up and broadens the testing cycle by using machine time for regression testing.
• Frees up time for testers to focus on critical items outside the automated suite.

Incentivized