Pros of wrk

• Lightweight and focused on HTTP benchmarking
• Easy to use with a simple command-line interface
• Supports Lua scripting for custom request generation

Cons of wrk

• Limited to HTTP benchmarking only
• Lacks comprehensive framework comparisons
• Doesn't provide detailed analysis of server-side performance

Code Comparison

wrk:

wrk.method = "POST"
wrk.body   = '{"key": "value"}'
wrk.headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json"

FrameworkBenchmarks:

{
  "framework": "express",
  "tests": [
    {
      "default": {
        "json_url": "/json"
      }
    }
  ]
}

Summary

wrk is a lightweight HTTP benchmarking tool, while FrameworkBenchmarks is a comprehensive suite for comparing web application frameworks. wrk excels in simplicity and ease of use for quick HTTP performance testing, but lacks the breadth and depth of framework comparisons offered by FrameworkBenchmarks. The latter provides a standardized environment for testing multiple frameworks across various scenarios, making it more suitable for in-depth performance analysis and framework selection. However, wrk's simplicity and Lua scripting capabilities make it a valuable tool for focused HTTP benchmarking tasks.

Pros of Locust

• User-friendly, Python-based scripting for defining test scenarios
• Real-time web interface for monitoring and adjusting tests
• Distributed testing capabilities for simulating large numbers of users

Cons of Locust

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols, less versatile than FrameworkBenchmarks
• Primarily focused on load testing, not comprehensive framework comparisons
• May require more setup for complex scenarios compared to FrameworkBenchmarks

Code Comparison

Locust example:

from locust import HttpUser, task, between

class WebsiteUser(HttpUser):
    wait_time = between(1, 5)

    @task
    def index_page(self):
        self.client.get("/")

FrameworkBenchmarks example:

{
  "framework": "flask",
  "tests": [
    {
      "default": {
        "json_url": "/json",
        "db_url": "/db",
        "query_url": "/queries?queries=",
        "fortune_url": "/fortunes",
        "update_url": "/updates?queries="
      }
    }
  ]
}

The Locust code defines a user behavior for load testing, while FrameworkBenchmarks uses a configuration file to specify endpoints for benchmarking different frameworks. FrameworkBenchmarks offers a more standardized approach to comparing multiple frameworks, whereas Locust provides flexibility for custom load testing scenarios.

Pros of Bombardier

• Lightweight and focused on HTTP(S) benchmarking
• Easy to install and use as a single binary
• Supports various protocols and customizable request parameters

Cons of Bombardier

• Limited to HTTP(S) benchmarking, not a comprehensive framework comparison tool
• Lacks built-in support for testing multiple frameworks or languages
• Does not provide detailed analysis or comparison reports

Code Comparison

FrameworkBenchmarks (config.toml):

[framework]
name = "aspcore"

[main]
urls.plaintext = "/plaintext"
urls.json = "/json"
approach = "Realistic"
classification = "Fullstack"
database = "None"

Bombardier (command-line usage):

bombardier -c 125 -n 100000 http://localhost:8080/plaintext

Summary

FrameworkBenchmarks is a comprehensive suite for comparing web application frameworks across multiple languages and platforms. It provides a standardized testing environment and detailed reports. Bombardier, on the other hand, is a focused HTTP(S) benchmarking tool that's easy to use for quick performance tests. While FrameworkBenchmarks offers a broader scope and more detailed analysis, Bombardier excels in simplicity and ease of use for specific HTTP(S) benchmarking tasks.

Pros of hey

• Lightweight and easy to use for quick HTTP load testing
• Single binary with no dependencies, making it portable across systems
• Supports custom headers and request methods

Cons of hey

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS benchmarking only
• Lacks the comprehensive framework comparisons offered by FrameworkBenchmarks
• Does not provide detailed analysis or visualization of results

Code Comparison

hey:

func main() {
    n := flag.Int("n", 200, "Number of requests to run")
    c := flag.Int("c", 50, "Number of workers to run concurrently")
    q := flag.Float64("q", 0, "Rate limit, in queries per second (QPS)")
    flag.Parse()
}

FrameworkBenchmarks:

def parse_args():
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Run the benchmark toolset")
    parser.add_argument('-s', '--server-host', help='Run server on HOST')
    parser.add_argument('-c', '--client-host', help='Run client on HOST')
    parser.add_argument('-i', '--identity-file', help='SSH identity file')
    return parser.parse_args()

hey is a focused tool for HTTP load testing, while FrameworkBenchmarks provides a comprehensive suite for comparing web application frameworks across multiple languages and platforms. hey is simpler to use for quick tests, but FrameworkBenchmarks offers more in-depth analysis and a wider range of benchmarking scenarios.

Pros of drill

• Lightweight and focused on HTTP/HTTPS benchmarking
• Easy to use with a simple YAML configuration file
• Supports concurrent requests and custom headers

Cons of drill

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS benchmarking, unlike FrameworkBenchmarks' broader scope
• Fewer built-in testing scenarios compared to FrameworkBenchmarks
• Less comprehensive in terms of framework and language coverage

Code comparison

drill configuration example:

concurrency: 4
base: 'http://localhost:9000'
iterations: 10

plan:
  - name: Fetch users
    request:
      url: /api/users

FrameworkBenchmarks test implementation example:

def json():
    return jsonify(message='Hello, World!')

def db():
    worlds = World.query.order_by(func.random()).limit(1).all()
    return jsonify(worlds[0].serialize())

While drill focuses on HTTP request benchmarking with a simple configuration, FrameworkBenchmarks provides a more comprehensive testing environment for various web frameworks and languages. drill is easier to set up and use for quick HTTP benchmarks, but FrameworkBenchmarks offers a wider range of tests and comparisons across different technologies.

Pros of Vegeta

• Lightweight and focused on HTTP load testing
• Easy to use with a simple CLI interface
• Supports various output formats for result analysis

Cons of Vegeta

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Lacks the comprehensive framework comparisons offered by FrameworkBenchmarks
• May not provide as detailed insights into server-side performance

Code Comparison

Vegeta (running a simple load test):

echo "GET http://example.com" | vegeta attack -duration=30s | vegeta report

FrameworkBenchmarks (running a test for a specific framework):

./tfb --test framework_name

Key Differences

• Purpose: Vegeta is a standalone HTTP load testing tool, while FrameworkBenchmarks is a comprehensive suite for comparing web application frameworks
• Scope: Vegeta focuses on client-side load generation, whereas FrameworkBenchmarks provides end-to-end benchmarking including server-side metrics
• Flexibility: Vegeta is more flexible for quick, custom HTTP load tests, while FrameworkBenchmarks offers standardized tests across multiple frameworks

Use Cases

• Vegeta: Ideal for developers and DevOps engineers needing quick, targeted HTTP load tests
• FrameworkBenchmarks: Better suited for framework authors, architects, and teams evaluating different web technologies for large-scale projects