BlazeMeter vs. Micro Focus Business Process Testing (discontinued)

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

You may want to consider this solution if you are already using HP ALM and HP UFT. It's a nice add on and encourages the team to think more on building small component based tests and promote lot of reuse. Also, if your team want business analysts or any non technical people build tests based on the flows, its probably the best solution available now. On the down side, the execution times if you have too many components are not great and on top of that you have to pay extra for the licensing. You can also build such frameworks using more open source solutions like bdd solutions.

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

• Biggest advantage is - you can use the same components created for manual as well as automated testing
• It has a nice little feature called extended capabilities where you can easily automate tests SAP and oracle type architectures.
• Easy access library lets you create highly reusable and shareable components and the integrations is not that difficult

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

• If you are using components for automation testing, the time it takes to load a new component is too high and it sucks off the benefit of component based testing.
• You want to have many components in a test and so a BA can also create automated tests easily but too many components takes too long to executed .
• It comes with a cost. You can simply build a modular framework even without this framework and probably more efficiently.

Incentivized

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

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

The idea for building a component based modular test framework is great and it would be great add-on to HP tools if the add-on efficiency is made high and the cost is low.

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

• As the tool itself promotes re usability, we were able to cut down development and maintenance costs by good %.
• More than cost savings, out no technical folks started building automated tests based on user flows very easily.

Incentivized