BlazeMeter vs. MOZARK vs. Quixxi Security

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

It is well suited for small-scale applications and freelance developers. It has in-built performance measuring criteria that give good insights about the application use. Overall it is good but it does need improvements in performance measuring metrics and more flexibility in reporting analytics for the application.

Incentivized

If you are developing mobile apps, you should be doing regular vulnerability scans. Quixxi Scan does this quickly and easily from your working app code. Furthermore, if your company requires compliance with any of the major software development or industry-standard data security standards like SOC -2, the Quixxi scan reports are ideal and can be used "as is."

• 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

• Dashboard for application performance report and analysis
• Support for integration with versioning tools like Git helps to quickly move the fixes and test the application in real-time
• Realtime monitoring gives details about how the application will perform under different loads

Incentivized

• Simple to understand but comprehensive PDF report. Ideal for compliance reporting.
• Provides recommendations to resolve vulnerabilities.
• Uses industry standard OWASP framework for vulnerability identification.

• 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

• Documentation needs improvement
• No 24/7 customer support

Incentivized

• Would like to see dynamics scanning added.
• Would like to see code snippets for examples.

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

Incentivized

Very good. I only had one problem when implementing it and the Support team was online via chat and helped me straight away.

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

It was the best value for money and it was easy to use. It was recommended in the top 10 vulnerability scanners.

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

Incentivized

• Easy to use interface
• Does not require in-depth training or knowledge to start and work with the tool

Incentivized

• It's cheap and comprehensive.
• It's quick and easy to use.
• It can be integrated into X-Code or Android Studio to run as a part of Git code checking or app deployment in the testing stage.