BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

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

UFT mobile works really well if/when you need physical devices under your management. Managing physical devices in any setup is an interesting undertaking due to the various considerations per device. There are really nice best practices, for example using managed USB switches like the one from Cambrionix, that can help make for a really good experience. For us, we only have 1 application at this time that has frequent updates/releases. We are able to test out these with confidence using our suite of real/on-campus devices managed and made available by the UFT Mobile product.

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

• Remote access to real devices within your organization network as compared to public devices library offering, where their is a risk of exposing pre-production builds outside the organization.
• "Factory built like" integration with HP ALM, HP Sprinter, HP UFT and HP Network Virtualization.
• Ability to mimic real world conditions in a controlled environment in the devices of your choice.
• Removed the guess work out of using emulators
• Able to extend automation to mobile testing using HP UFT.

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

• Most of our problems are with the lengthy onboarding process with iOS devices.
• Occasionally Android devices will disconnect themselves.

Incentivized

The tool continues to meet our expectations and has shown that they are continually evolving the product with new features that benefit us. The most recent new feature was the auto-signing/packaging of iOS apps from the server to allow native interaction of features like biometrics. Prior this was a lengthy exercise.

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

HP Mobile Center stacks well against solutions like Mobile Labs Device Connect, Perfecto Mobile and Device Anywhere. Its native integration with HP ALM and HP UFT makes it a clear choice for team already using those solutions. HP Mobile Center also provides extension to Amazon Device Library.

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

• Efficient use of the devices. Reduced the idle time.
• Better control over access and user management. Testing within our controlled environments.
• Better control of device matrix.
• Faster testing cycles. Early design bugs to development teams. Real devices means, less guess work.

Incentivized