What is Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing?
Dotcom-Monitor's load-testing product line includes LoadView (cloud-based) and on-prem options for performance/load testing. The cloud LoadView arm has been their primary load-test offering since 2015. Where it falls short for many teams: multi-product overhead (LoadView is separate from Dotcom-Monitor's synthetic monitoring SKU, two contracts), concurrent-VU pricing that scales aggressively, EveryStep browser-script lock-in for real-Chrome scenarios, and dated UI compared to focused modern competitors.
When Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing is the right pick
- You're an existing Dotcom-Monitor synthetic monitoring customer and want consolidated billing.
- You need EveryStep real-Chrome browser-based load testing (their flagship feature).
- You need exotic protocol coverage (DNS, streaming, FTP) from the broader Dotcom-Monitor stack.
Where Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing leaves gaps
- Multi-product pricing. LoadView + Dotcom-Monitor synthetic + per-feature SKUs stack quickly. Total bill often $300-1000+/mo for serious teams.
- Concurrent-VU metering. Tier jumps at 25/50/100/250+ concurrent users mean budget surprises mid-campaign.
- EveryStep lock-in. Browser scripts recorded in EveryStep don't port to JMeter/k6, vendor-specific format.
- Dated UI. Functional but feels behind modern SaaS competitors.
- No native Core Web Vitals depth. Load-test focused; SEO-grade page-perf is bolted on.
LoadFocus vs. Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing: comparison
| Feature | LoadFocus | Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing |
|---|---|---|
| JMeter cloud execution | Yes, .jmx unchanged | Partial (plugin limitations) |
| k6 cloud execution | Yes, .js scripts | No |
| Real-Chrome browser load | Headless Chrome via k6 browser | Yes (EveryStep, their flagship) |
| Synthetic API monitoring | Yes, included | Separate Dotcom-Monitor SKU |
| Core Web Vitals depth | Full Lighthouse | Basic |
| Pricing model | Flat SaaS tier | Per concurrent VU metered |
| Entry price | ~$19/mo | ~$199/mo + per-test fees |
| Setup workflow | Upload .jmx or .js, run | Record EveryStep or import .jmx |
| Free tier | Forever | Limited credits |
When LoadFocus is the right pick
- You write JMeter or k6 scripts and don't need record-and-replay browser flows.
- You want flat predictable pricing: no concurrent-VU metering anxiety.
- You need load testing + synthetic monitoring + Core Web Vitals in one tool, not 3 Dotcom-Monitor SKUs.
- You're small-to-mid market where LoadView's per-VU pricing doesn't fit.
- You want a permanent free tier for prototyping.
Migrating from Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing
- Inventory existing load tests by type: EveryStep recordings, .jmx imports, protocol-only HTTP scripts.
- For .jmx imports: copy directly to LoadFocus, runs unchanged on upstream Apache JMeter without LoadView's plugin restrictions.
- For HTTP-protocol scripts: rewrite as k6 .js (lighter weight + modern code-first model).
- For EveryStep browser flows: rewrite as k6 browser-mode tests. No automated converter. EveryStep is SmartBear-proprietary.
- Cancel the synthetic monitoring + LoadView SKUs separately at renewal; LoadFocus consolidates both.
FAQ: LoadFocus vs Dotcom-Monitor Load Testing
Can I run my LoadView .jmx scripts on LoadFocus?
Yes. JMeter .jmx files port directly. Both services use upstream Apache JMeter without proprietary extensions blocking portability. LoadFocus also runs k6 (LoadView doesn't).
Is LoadFocus cheaper than LoadView?
Dramatically. LoadFocus Pro starts ~$19/mo flat; LoadView entry tier is ~$199/mo and scales with concurrent VU. A 500-VU campaign on LoadView can run $1,000-3,000+/mo.
Does LoadFocus do EveryStep-style real-Chrome scripting?
Via k6 browser-mode (Chromium-based). EveryStep has more polish for record-and-replay; k6 is code-first. For most modern teams k6 is preferable (version-controlled, CI-friendly).
What about exotic protocols (DNS, streaming, FTP)?
Dotcom-Monitor specializes in these. LoadFocus is HTTP-focused. If you need DNS/streaming/FTP testing, keep Dotcom-Monitor for those specific use cases.
Can I keep Dotcom-Monitor synthetic + use LoadFocus for load?
Yes, common pattern. Drop the LoadView SKU + keep Dotcom-Monitor synthetic if you need their exotic protocol monitoring. LoadFocus replaces the load-test slice.
Does LoadFocus support .jmx plugins LoadView restricts?
Yes, full upstream Apache JMeter + most public plugins. LoadView's JMeter execution restricts certain plugins; LoadFocus doesn't.
Get started with LoadFocus
Sign up free and upload your first JMeter .jmx or k6 .js, flat pricing, no concurrent-VU metering.
