Pros of hey

• Written in Go, offering good performance and cross-platform compatibility
• Simple and straightforward CLI interface
• Supports HTTP/2 by default

Cons of hey

• Limited customization options compared to bombardier
• Lacks some advanced features like custom headers and request body

Code comparison

hey:

func (b *Work) Run() {
    b.results = make(chan *result, b.N)
    if b.Output == "" {
        b.bar = newPb(b.N)
    }
    b.run()
}

bombardier:

func (b *Bombardier) fire() {
    b.barrier.Wait()
    b.ratelimiter.Wait()
    b.client.Do(b.req)
    b.recordResult()
}

Both tools use Go's concurrency features to manage multiple requests, but bombardier offers more fine-grained control over the benchmarking process.

hey is simpler to use and supports HTTP/2 out of the box, making it a good choice for quick benchmarks. bombardier provides more advanced features and customization options, making it suitable for more complex testing scenarios.

Overall, hey is ideal for simple, quick benchmarks, while bombardier is better suited for more detailed and customizable load testing.

Pros of Vegeta

• More extensive reporting options, including real-time metrics and detailed histograms
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, CSV, Histogram) for better integration with other tools
• Offers a library mode, allowing integration into Go applications for programmatic load testing

Cons of Vegeta

• Less intuitive command-line interface compared to Bombardier
• Lacks built-in support for WebSocket connections
• May require more setup time for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

Vegeta:

rate := vegeta.Rate{Freq: 100, Per: time.Second}
duration := 5 * time.Second
targeter := vegeta.NewStaticTargeter(vegeta.Target{
    Method: "GET",
    URL:    "http://example.com",
})
attacker := vegeta.NewAttacker()

Bombardier:

b, err := bombardier.New(&bombardier.Config{
    NumReqs:    &numReqs,
    URL:        url,
    Method:     "GET",
    Timeout:    defaultTimeout,
    Headers:    headers,
    BodyReader: bodyReader,
})

Both tools are powerful HTTP load testing utilities, but Vegeta offers more advanced reporting and integration options, while Bombardier provides a simpler interface and built-in WebSocket support. Choose based on your specific requirements and familiarity with Go.

Pros of wrk

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance for certain workloads
• Supports Lua scripting for more complex benchmarking scenarios
• Has a longer history and larger community, potentially leading to more stability and resources

Cons of wrk

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Less user-friendly for beginners due to its command-line interface and Lua scripting requirement
• Lacks built-in support for detailed result analysis and reporting

Code Comparison

wrk:

static void *thread_main(void *arg) {
    thread *t = arg;
    aeEventLoop *loop = aeCreateEventLoop(10 + cfg.connections * 3);
    t->loop = loop;
    thread_local_init(t);
    aeCreateTimeEvent(loop, CALIBRATE_DELAY_MS, calibrate, t, NULL);
    aeMain(loop);
    aeDeleteEventLoop(loop);
    return NULL;
}

bombardier:

func (b *bombardier) worker() {
    for b.barrier.tryGrabWork() {
        code, bytesRead, err := b.client.do()
        b.recordRequest(code, bytesRead, err)
    }
    b.barrier.done()
}

Pros of Locust

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for many developers and easier to extend
• Supports distributed load testing across multiple machines
• Provides a web-based UI for real-time monitoring and control of tests

Cons of Locust

• Generally slower performance compared to Bombardier due to Python's interpreted nature
• Requires more setup and configuration for complex scenarios
• Higher resource consumption, especially for large-scale tests

Code Comparison

Bombardier (Go):

bombardier -c 100 -n 10000 http://example.com

Locust (Python):

locust -f locustfile.py --host=http://example.com -u 100 -r 10 -t 1m

Key Differences

• Bombardier is a single binary, while Locust requires Python installation
• Locust offers more flexibility in test scenario design
• Bombardier is typically faster for raw HTTP benchmarking
• Locust provides better reporting and visualization options

Both tools have their strengths, with Bombardier excelling in simple, high-performance benchmarking, and Locust offering more comprehensive load testing capabilities and easier customization for complex scenarios.

Pros of Goad

• Distributed load testing across multiple AWS Lambda functions
• Supports custom headers and request bodies
• Provides real-time results visualization

Cons of Goad

• Requires AWS account and setup
• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Less actively maintained compared to Bombardier

Code Comparison

Goad:

cfg := &goad.TestConfig{
    URL:            "http://example.com",
    Concurrency:    10,
    TotalRequests:  1000,
    RequestTimeout: 5 * time.Second,
}
result, err := goad.RunTest(cfg)

Bombardier:

b, err := bombardier.New(bombardier.Config{
    URLs:       []string{"http://example.com"},
    NumReqs:    &bombardier.Uint64Value{Value: 1000},
    Connections: 10,
    Timeout:     5 * time.Second,
})
b.Bombard()

Both tools offer similar configuration options, but Goad's setup is more focused on distributed testing, while Bombardier provides a simpler local testing approach. Goad's code emphasizes its AWS-centric nature, whereas Bombardier's code highlights its flexibility for local and single-instance testing.

Pros of Fortio

• More comprehensive features, including support for gRPC and WebSocket protocols
• Built-in web UI for real-time monitoring and result visualization
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Fortio

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex setup
• May have higher resource usage due to additional features

Code Comparison

Fortio:

http.HandleFunc("/fortio/", fortioui.Handler)
if err := http.ListenAndServe(*addr, nil); err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Bombardier:

b := bombardier.New(config)
b.Bombard()
b.Finish()

Fortio offers a more comprehensive HTTP server setup with built-in UI handling, while Bombardier provides a simpler, more focused API for load testing. Fortio's code snippet demonstrates its integration with a web server, whereas Bombardier's code shows a straightforward benchmarking process.

Both tools are effective for load testing, but Fortio offers more features and a user-friendly interface at the cost of increased complexity. Bombardier, on the other hand, provides a lightweight and easy-to-use solution for basic load testing scenarios.