What is Loadster?
Loadster is a cloud load-testing service from BrickHouse Labs, designed for ease of use with browser-based test recording. Pitch: record-and-replay browser scenarios + scale to cloud-distributed load testing without writing scripts. Where it falls short for many modern teams: proprietary Loadster scripting format (Loadster recorder scripts, not JMeter/k6 portable, though it also runs Playwright Test scripts), monitoring sold as a separate plan, no Core Web Vitals depth, smaller probe location coverage, and usage-based fuel pricing that adds up for serious campaigns.
When Loadster is the right pick
- Your team has no scripting expertise and wants record-and-replay browser load testing.
- You need a simpler tool than enterprise BlazeMeter/LoadView.
- You don't need synthetic monitoring or Core Web Vitals.
Where Loadster leaves gaps
- Proprietary scripting. Loadster's recorder format doesn't port to JMeter/k6.
- Monitoring on a separate plan. Loadster sells monitoring plans from $29/month, with single-URL checks and scripted flows including multi-step APIs, billed separately from load-testing fuel. Prices from the Loadster pricing page, checked October 2026.
- No Core Web Vitals depth. No Lighthouse / page-perf coverage.
- Limited probe locations. Fewer geographic options than larger SaaS competitors.
- Usage-based pricing. Tests use up fuel units: test duration × bots launched × bot type, with Browser and Playwright bots counting 4× a Protocol bot, so 100 Protocol Bots for 30 minutes use 50 units. Monthly fuel plans start at $77/month for 1,000 units, and big or frequent campaigns burn through them quickly.
LoadFocus vs. Loadster: comparison
| Feature | LoadFocus | Loadster |
|---|---|---|
| JMeter cloud execution | Yes, .jmx unchanged | No (Loadster Protocol/Browser Bot scripts and Playwright Test scripts) |
| k6 cloud execution | Yes, .js scripts | No |
| Browser record-and-replay | No (JMeter/k6 scripts or the web UI test builder) | Yes (Loadster's strength) |
| Synthetic API monitoring | Yes, included | Yes, separate monitoring plans from $29/mo (incl. multi-step APIs) |
| Core Web Vitals depth | Full Lighthouse | No |
| Pricing model | Flat SaaS tier | Fuel units (duration × bots × bot type) |
| Entry price | $29/mo ($19/mo billed yearly) | $77/mo (1,000 fuel units); monitoring from $29/mo |
| Free tier | Forever | Limited trial |
| Probe locations | 25+ regions | Fewer |
When LoadFocus is the right pick
- You write JMeter or k6 scripts and don't need record-and-replay.
- You need load testing + synthetic monitoring + Core Web Vitals in one tool.
- You want flat predictable pricing: no metered fuel units.
- You need global probe coverage (NA/EU/APAC).
- You want a permanent free tier for prototyping.
Migrating from Loadster
- Inventory existing Loadster scenarios by parameters: URLs, user count, ramp, duration.
- Rebuild as JMeter (.jmx) or k6 (.js) scripts: manual rebuild from Loadster scenario configs. No automated converter (proprietary format).
- Upload to LoadFocus: runs on upstream Apache JMeter / k6.
- Compare results side-by-side for one cycle to verify p95/p99/error-rate parity.
- Cancel Loadster subscription once side-by-side confirms.
FAQ: LoadFocus vs Loadster
Can I import Loadster scenarios into LoadFocus?
Not via automated converter. Loadster's recorder format is proprietary. Manual rebuild as JMeter (.jmx) or k6 (.js) is the migration path.
Is LoadFocus cheaper than Loadster?
Generally yes. LoadFocus load testing starts at $29/mo, or $19/mo billed yearly; Loadster's monthly fuel plans start at $77/month for 1,000 units (a one-off 1,000-unit pack is $97), and what a test costs depends on its duration, bot count and bot type. How much cheaper LoadFocus is depends on how long and how big your tests are.
Does LoadFocus do browser record-and-replay?
No. LoadFocus has no browser recorder, and its load tests are protocol-level (HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2): you upload a JMeter .jmx or k6 .js script, or build a test in the web UI. Protocol-level load is cheaper per virtual user and scales far higher than real-browser load. Browser flows can be scripted in Playwright as browser checks in API monitoring, one headless Chromium per run on a schedule (paid plans), but that is monitoring, not load. If record-and-replay or real-browser load is a hard requirement, Loadster is the better fit.
What about synthetic monitoring?
Loadster sells monitoring as separate plans from $29/month, with single-URL checks and scripted flows including multi-step APIs. LoadFocus includes it, single tool for monitor + load.
Can LoadFocus replace Loadster fully?
For JMeter/k6-based or HTTP-protocol load testing, yes + with more features. For pure record-and-replay convenience without scripting, Loadster's UI is more polished. Browser flows have no direct equivalent in LoadFocus load tests: re-create the underlying HTTP requests as a JMeter or k6 script for load, and/or as a Playwright browser check for monitoring. If you rely on the Browser or Playwright bots in Loadster for real-browser load, Loadster is the better fit.
What about Core Web Vitals?
LoadFocus runs scheduled Lighthouse audits. Loadster has no equivalent.
Get started with LoadFocus
Sign up free and upload your first JMeter .jmx or k6 .js, flat pricing, broader stack than Loadster.
