What is LoadView?
LoadView is the cloud load-testing product from Dotcom-Monitor, focused on browser-based load testing using real Chrome instances (their EveryStep recorder) plus protocol-level HTTP testing. Pitch: real-browser load testing without scripting expertise. Where it falls short for many modern teams: pricing is metered per concurrent virtual user with steep tiers, the EveryStep recorder works but binds you to LoadView's format, no native JMeter/k6 cloud execution, and the broader Dotcom-Monitor synthetic monitoring is a separate product/contract.
When LoadView is the right pick
- Your team has no scripting expertise and wants record-and-replay browser load tests.
- You need real-Chrome browser-based load generation (vs HTTP-protocol-only) for SPA-heavy apps.
- You're already on Dotcom-Monitor's synthetic monitoring and want consolidated billing.
Where LoadView leaves gaps
- Real-browser load needs a bigger plan. Starter is $199/mo ($129/mo billed annually) for up to 1,000 HTTP users or 100 real browsers, Professional is $699/mo for 10,000 HTTP users or 1,000 browsers, and Advanced covers 30,000 / 3,000, plus On-Demand (pay per test) and custom Enterprise. Prices from the LoadView pricing page, checked October 2026. A 1,000-user HTTP campaign fits in Starter, but 1,000 real browsers need Professional.
- EveryStep lock-in. Scripts recorded in EveryStep don't port to JMeter/k6, vendor-specific format.
- No native JMeter/k6 cloud execution. LoadView supports JMeter import but with limitations on plugins and features.
- Synthetic monitoring is separate. Dotcom-Monitor sells it as a different SKU; you pay twice for load + monitoring.
- No native Core Web Vitals depth. Load-test focused; SEO-grade page-perf is bolted on.
LoadFocus vs. LoadView: comparison
| Feature | LoadFocus | LoadView |
|---|---|---|
| JMeter cloud execution | Yes, .jmx unchanged | Partial (some plugin limitations) |
| k6 cloud execution | Yes, .js scripts | No |
| Real-Chrome browser load | No (protocol-level HTTP load; Playwright browser checks in monitoring) | Yes (EveryStep, LoadView's strength) |
| 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 | $29/mo ($19/mo billed yearly) | ~$199/mo + per-test fees |
| Setup workflow | Upload .jmx or .js, run | Record EveryStep script or import .jmx |
| Free tier | Forever | Limited free credits |
When LoadFocus is the right pick
- You write JMeter or k6 scripts and don't need record-and-replay.
- You want flat predictable pricing: no concurrent-VU metering anxiety.
- You need load testing + synthetic monitoring + Core Web Vitals in one tool, not three 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 LoadView
- Inventory existing LoadView tests by type: EveryStep recordings vs HTTP-protocol scripts vs imported .jmx.
- For HTTP-protocol scripts: re-record/rewrite as JMeter (.jmx) or k6 (.js): most common path.
- For .jmx imports: copy as-is to LoadFocus, which runs upstream Apache JMeter without LoadView's plugin restrictions.
- For EveryStep browser scripts: there is no direct equivalent, because LoadFocus does not run real-browser load. Re-create the underlying HTTP requests as a JMeter (.jmx) or k6 (.js) protocol script for load, and/or as a Playwright browser check in API monitoring for the user journey. No automated converter.
- Recreate alerting + migration. Verify p95/p99/error-rate parity on one cycle before canceling LoadView.
FAQ: LoadFocus vs LoadView
Does LoadFocus do real-browser load testing like LoadView's EveryStep?
No. LoadFocus 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, and run it from cloud load generators in 25+ regions, with up to 12,500 virtual users on Pro. Protocol-level load is cheaper per virtual user and scales far higher than real-browser load. Browser checks exist in API monitoring: a Playwright script runs in headless Chromium on a schedule, one browser per run, with screenshots, per-step timings and a trace (paid plans only). If real-browser load is a hard requirement, EveryStep in LoadView is the better fit.
Is LoadFocus cheaper than LoadView?
At the entry level, yes. LoadFocus load testing starts at $29/mo, or $19/mo billed yearly; LoadView starts at $199/mo ($129/mo billed annually) on Starter. A 500-VU HTTP test fits within Starter; if those 500 users must be real browsers, LoadView needs Professional at $699/mo ($454/mo billed annually).
Can I import my LoadView .jmx scripts?
Yes if you have .jmx exports, they run on LoadFocus unchanged (Apache JMeter, no plugin restrictions). EveryStep recordings need rewrite, no automated converter.
What about Dotcom-Monitor synthetic monitoring?
If you're paying for both LoadView + Dotcom-Monitor synthetic, LoadFocus replaces both with a single tool. Most teams save 30-60% on combined billing.
Does LoadFocus support .jmx plugins?
Yes, full upstream Apache JMeter + most public plugins. LoadView's JMeter execution restricts certain plugins; LoadFocus doesn't.
Real-Chrome vs Headless-Chrome, does it matter?
LoadFocus load tests do not use a browser: they send protocol-level HTTP traffic, so the choice there is protocol vs real browser, not headless vs real. LoadFocus uses headless Chromium for Playwright browser checks and Chrome for Lighthouse page speed monitoring, one browser per run, not as load, and for those headless behaves like Real Chrome in most cases. For specific anti-bot detection scenarios that distinguish them, EveryStep's full Chrome may be needed. Rare.
Get started with LoadFocus
Sign up free and upload your first JMeter .jmx or k6 .js, flat pricing, no concurrent-VU metering.
