Pros of Hey

• Simpler and more straightforward to use
• Supports HTTP/2 by default
• Actively maintained with recent updates

Cons of Hey

• Limited to HTTP load testing only
• Lacks distributed testing capabilities
• Fewer customization options compared to Goad

Code Comparison

Hey:

hey -n 1000 -c 100 https://example.com

Goad:

goad -n 1000 -c 100 -r us-east-1,eu-west-1 https://example.com

Hey focuses on simplicity, making it easy to run quick load tests with a single command. It's well-suited for basic HTTP testing scenarios and supports HTTP/2 out of the box.

Goad, on the other hand, offers more advanced features like distributed load testing across multiple AWS regions. This makes it more suitable for complex, large-scale testing scenarios.

Hey's codebase is more compact and easier to understand, while Goad provides more extensive configuration options and infrastructure for distributed testing.

Both tools are written in Go and serve similar purposes, but cater to different complexity levels of load testing requirements. Hey is ideal for quick, simple tests, while Goad is better suited for more comprehensive, distributed load testing scenarios.

Pros of Vegeta

• More mature and widely used project with a larger community
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, CSV, Histogram)
• Can be used as a library in Go programs for custom load testing scenarios

Cons of Vegeta

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Lacks distributed load testing capabilities out of the box
• Less user-friendly for those unfamiliar with command-line tools

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()

for res := range attacker.Attack(targeter, rate, duration, "Big Bang!") {
    // Process results
}

Goad:

test := goad.NewTest(&goad.TestConfig{
    URL:       "http://example.com",
    Method:    "GET",
    Concurrency: 10,
    TotalRequests: 1000,
    Timeout:   time.Second * 5,
})

result, err := test.Run()
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Both tools offer similar functionality for load testing, but Vegeta provides more flexibility as a library, while Goad focuses on ease of use and distributed testing capabilities.

Pros of wrk

• Written in C, offering high performance and low resource usage
• Simple and straightforward command-line interface
• Supports Lua scripting for custom request generation and response handling

Cons of wrk

• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols
• Lacks built-in distributed testing capabilities
• Less extensive reporting and visualization options

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, RECORD_INTERVAL_MS, record_rate, t, NULL);
    aeMain(loop);
    aeDeleteEventLoop(loop);
    return NULL;
}

Goad:

func (l *Loader) Run() error {
    var wg sync.WaitGroup
    for i := 0; i < l.config.Concurrency; i++ {
        wg.Add(1)
        go l.runWorker(&wg)
    }
    wg.Wait()
    return nil
}

The code snippets show the core functionality of each tool. wrk uses a C-based event loop for handling connections, while Goad utilizes Go's concurrency features with goroutines and wait groups for distributed load testing.

Pros of Locust

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports distributed load testing out of the box
• Offers a web-based UI for real-time monitoring and control

Cons of Locust

• Written in Python, which may be slower than Go for certain operations
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Goad's simplicity
• Limited to HTTP/HTTPS protocols without extensions

Code Comparison

Locust:

from locust import HttpUser, task, between

class MyUser(HttpUser):
    wait_time = between(1, 3)

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

Goad:

goad.Run(goad.RunConfig{
    URL:       "http://example.com",
    Concurrency: 10,
    Requests:    1000,
    Timelimit:   300,
})

Summary

Locust is a more feature-rich and mature load testing tool with a larger community, offering distributed testing and a web UI. However, it may be slower and require more setup than Goad. Goad, being written in Go, is potentially faster and simpler to use but lacks some advanced features of Locust. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and team expertise.

Pros of Bombardier

• Written in Go, offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports HTTP/1.1, TLS, and HTTP/2 protocols
• Provides more detailed statistics and percentiles in the output

Cons of Bombardier

• Lacks distributed load testing capabilities
• Does not offer cloud-based testing options
• Limited customization options for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

Bombardier:

b, err := bombardier.New(bombardier.Config{
    NumReqs:    &numReqs,
    Duration:   &duration,
    URL:        url,
    Method:     method,
    Body:       body,
    Headers:    headers,
    Timeout:    timeout,
    Client:     client,
})

Goad:

test := goad.NewTest(&goad.TestConfig{
    URL:            url,
    Concurrency:    concurrency,
    TotalRequests:  requests,
    RequestTimeout: timeout,
    Region:         region,
    Method:         method,
})

Key Differences

• Goad focuses on distributed load testing using AWS Lambda, while Bombardier is a single-machine load testing tool
• Bombardier offers more detailed performance metrics and supports various HTTP protocols
• Goad provides cloud-based testing capabilities, allowing for larger-scale tests across multiple regions

Both tools are useful for load testing, but they cater to different use cases. Bombardier is better suited for local or single-server testing, while Goad excels in distributed, cloud-based load testing scenarios.