Web Platform Assessment Tools: An Experimental Evaluation

  • Solange Paz
  • Jorge BernardinoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 322)


Web search engines are used daily to find information, helping the user to surf the web. Web searching is the most popular online activity and although search engines regularly use updated indexes to run quickly and efficiently, they sometimes fail to keep the user on their page for a long time. As such, it is important to have the lowest delay in response time. Therefore, it is essential to understand what load is supported by each search engine by conducting load testing. These tests have the objective of optimizing the performance of the application being tested, thus verifying the maximum amount of data that is processed. In this paper we conduct a comparative analysis of the four most popular web platform assessment tools, Apache JMeter, Apache Flood, The Grinder and Gatling. As important as the search engine response time is the accuracy of returned results, that is, the amount of correct links related to what was searched for. For that reason, the accuracy of results returned by web search engines are also evaluated. In the experimental evaluation we use two tools: Apache jMeter and The Grinder, to compare with the web search engines: Google, Bing, Ask and Aol Search.


Web assessment tools Load testing Performance tests Results accuracy 


  1. 1.
    Avritzer, A., Weyuker, E.R.: The automatic generation of load test suites and the assessment of the resulting software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(9), 705–716 (1995). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avritzer, A., Larson, B.: Load testing software using deterministic state testing. In: Ostrand, T., Weyuker, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 1993, pp. 82–88. ACM, New York (1993). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avritzer, A., Weyuker, E.J.: Generating test suites for software load testing. In: Ostrand, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, ISSTA 1994, pp. 44–57. ACM, New York (1994).
  4. 4.
    Apache Flood. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  5. 5.
    Apache JMeter. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  6. 6.
    Difference Between Performance Testing, Load Testing and Stress Testing – With Examples. Accessed 15 July 2017
  7. 7.
    Wang, F., Du, W.: A test automaton framework based on WEB. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer and Information, ACIS 2012. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gatling Project, Stress Tool. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  9. 9.
    Banga, G., Druschel, P.: Measuring the capacity of a web server under realistic loads. World Wide Web 2(1–2), 69–83 (1999). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Information about Yahoo Error 999. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  11. 11.
    Zhang, J., Cheung, S.C.: Automated test case generation for the stress testing of multimedia systems. Softw. Pract. Experience J. 32(15), 1411–1435 (2002). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curran, K., Duffy, C.: Understanding and reducing web delays. Int. J. Netw. Manag. 15(2), 89–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lohr: For Impatient Web Users, an Eye Blink Is Just Too Long to Wait (2012).
  14. 14.
    Bayan, M.S., Cangussu, J.W.: Automatic stress and load testing for embedded systems. In: 30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2006), Chicago, IL, pp. 229–233 (2006).
  15. 15.
    Sharma, M., Angmo, R.: Web based automation testing and tools. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma, M., Iyer, V.S., Subramanian, S., Shetty, A.: A comparative study on load testing tools. Int. J. Innovative Res. Comput. Commun. Eng. (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barford, P., Crovella, M.: Measuring web performance in the wide area. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 27(2), 37–48 (1999). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paz, S., Bernardino, J.: Comparative analysis of web platform assessment tools. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Volume 1: WEBIST, pp. 116–125 (2017). ISBN 978-989-758-246-2.
  19. 19.
    Pressman, R.: Engenharia de Software, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Khan, R.: Comparative Study of Performance Testing Tools: Apache JMeter and HP LoadRunner (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hussain, S., Wang, Z., Toure, I.K., Diop, A.: Web Service Testing Tools: A Comparative Study (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Grinder, a Java Load Testing Framework. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  24. 24.
    Tikhanski: Open Source Load Testing Tools: Which One Should You Use? (2015).
  25. 25.
    Garousi, V., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: Traffic-aware stress testing of distributed systems based on UML models. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), 391–400. ACM, New York (2006).
  26. 26.
    Wang, X., Zhou, B., Li, W.: Model based load testing of web applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA 2010). IEEE Press (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jiang, Z.M., Hassan, A.E., Hamann, G., Flora, P.: Automatic identification of load testing problems. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Beijing, pp. 307–316 (2008).
  28. 28.
    Jiang, Z.M.: Automated analysis of load testing results. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2010), pp. 143–146. ACM, New York (2010).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnic of Coimbra, ISECCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Centre of Informatics and SystemsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations