BlazeMeter vs. QAComplete

It is good for measurements of performance testing. It can be used to run API testing. I can not use this for monitoring but it can be used as a complement for monitoring tools (like Catchpoint or New Relic). It can help to produce load on your site and monitor.

Incentivized

Very well suited to requirements management, test suite creation and defect management. Not suited to project/task management.

Incentivized

• Blazemeter has very intuitive and uncluttered UI. It is very easy for a beginner to figure out and get started.
• Blazemeter allows several methods of creating performance tests - using several popular open source applications. Therefore most often there is no need to learn to use a new tool or language.

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

• It required good knowledge to analyze BlazeMeter report.

• 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

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

BlazeMeter scores well against Apache JMeter in one Key point , the load generation from different cloud based systems. This helps to measure the capacity of the the application in a transparent way and not bogged down by the capacity of the system from where the test is executed (in this case Apache JMeter)

Incentivized

We had used FogBugz and Freshdesk for quite some time. I hadn't been exposed to QAComplete until recently during a project with one of our clients, but we are already starting to see the superior benefits of this product. Once you wrap your head around the interface and navigate to the bug reports, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Incentivized

• BlazeMerter helped performance tests run on their cloud, thereby diminishing our on-prem setup costs tremendously.
• BlazeMeter pings our application from several geographical locations, thereby simulating real life users.
• BlazeMeter offers dedicated IPs so that firewall issues can be bypassed.

Incentivized

• From our side, it's been very easy to pick up on bugs reported by our clients. It's a great ROI for the cost as they are fairly minimal in comparison to other QA software.
• I think a negative impact can be the administration of QA items. It definitely feels a bit bogged down.
• My last negative would be that I don't believe it syncs in any way with the Atlassian software suite. I could be wrong on this but manual entry from system to system can be daunting at times.

Incentivized