BlazeMeter vs. National Instruments SystemLink vs. Robot Framework

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

There are definitely scenarios where NI SystemLink will be useful but just didn't work out well for us. I needed to be able to replace an EXE file on a computer with a new EXE to do the upgrades but I was not able to do that through SystemLink. You had to work with packages in order to perform this and I didn't want to revamp my distribution plan. We also didn't need to do any asset management or calibration documentation through SystemLink. I was excited about being able to view data from the test stations through a browser but our engineers need historical data available and everything resets to a live view when you click back to the UI.

Incentivized

It suits for checking features of a simple web application or features that don't heavily rely on AJAX. You could create tests that check if application is running properly and raise alarm if required so someone can manually check for problems. However making big test sets to produce reliable results may prove to be difficult or impossible. Also running lots of test cases can take hours.

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

• Setup
• User Interface
• LabVIEW Integration

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

• Licensing
• Not able to see data from all test stations on one UI
• Lack of data history

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

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

Incentivized

• Availability to monitor multiple test stations remotely
• Was quick to integrate into existing LabVIEW codebase
• Ultimately did not justify the licensing cost for the benefit

Incentivized