BlazeMeter vs. QAComplete

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

I think QAComplete is a great way to organize the literal hundreds of development bugs that are discovered throughout an agile-based project. Teams aren't always able to hotfix items on the fly and this tool provides a great repository and facility for storing and prioritizing those technical debt items that may get overlooked from sprint to sprint. It also let's everyone on the team get a clear understanding for project progress.

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

• Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans.
• Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects.
• Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation.

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

• The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times.
• Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program.
• A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.

Incentivized

I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.

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

A comprehensive solution

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

• Helped us in increase the quality of our firmware releases.
• Helps us continuously improve our testing

Incentivized