Comparison

Evaluat vs Locust

Both tools load-test applications. They go about it very differently. Here's where each one fits, written as fairly as we can manage.

Evaluat

Real-browser performance testing

Evaluat runs each virtual user in an isolated real browser and reports Core Web Vitals, Navigation Timing, and Apdex under load, with session video, network logs, and console logs for every user.

Locust

Open-source Python load testing

Locust is a popular open-source, Python-based load testing tool. It is protocol-first (native HTTP, extensible to gRPC, WebSocket, and more in code). Real browsers are available only through third-party plugins (locust-plugins PlaywrightUser or WebdriverUser), which are headless and resource-heavy.

The categorical difference: Locust is an open-source, Python-scripted load tool, protocol-first by design; real browsers come only through a plugin, headless and resource-heavy. Evaluat runs a real browser for every virtual user with no code, and reports Core Web Vitals, Apdex, and an Executive Summary.

At a glance

Capability comparison

Capability	Evaluat	Locust
Real browser per virtual user		Plugin, headless
No-code visual recorder
Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS, FCP) under load
Apdex score
Executive Summary
Per-session video for every user
Full network and console logs per session
Step-by-step pass/fail playback
Hosted, no infrastructure to manage
In-region data residency		Self-hosted
HTTP / API / any-protocol load at scale
Open source and free
Code-defined tests (Python) and CI	Visual scenarios

When Locust is the right call

Locust is genuinely the better tool in a couple of situations.

You want a free, self-hosted tool that scales horizontally. Locust is open source with no per-user cost, and its distributed workers drive huge numbers of lightweight protocol requests, far beyond what a real-browser-per-user model reaches. Evaluat is a hosted commercial product focused on the browser.

You want code-as-tests and any protocol. Locust tests are Python in version control, extensible to gRPC, WebSocket, MQTT, Kafka, or anything you can call from Python, and CI-native. If your team prefers code and needs non-HTTP protocols, Locust is built for that.

When Evaluat is the right call

Evaluat runs a real browser, not a heavy plugin.

You want real-browser metrics for every user, with no code. Evaluat runs a real browser for every virtual user and reports LCP, INP, CLS, FCP, and Apdex, recorded by clicking through your site. Locust's real-browser support is a plugin: headless, resource-heavy, and you write Python for every test.

Your stakeholders need the result, not the raw numbers. Evaluat distils each run into an Executive Summary: a plain-language verdict with a health score, the key findings ranked by severity, and recommended fixes. Locust gives you percentile statistics and charts to interpret yourself.

You need to debug failures forensically. Evaluat keeps session video, full network logs, console output, and step-by-step pass and fail for every virtual user. Locust reports aggregate request statistics, with no per-session video or browser console.

You want a hosted tool with data residency, not infrastructure to run. Evaluat is hosted and keeps each test's data in the region the test ran in. Locust is software you host and scale yourself.

Common questions

FAQ

Can Locust test real browsers?

Only through a plugin (locust-plugins PlaywrightUser or WebdriverUser), which runs headless browsers and is resource-heavy, so you scale far fewer browser users than protocol users. Real browsers are not in core Locust. Evaluat runs a real browser for every virtual user as standard.

Does Locust measure Core Web Vitals?

No. Locust reports percentile response-time statistics, with no native Core Web Vitals or Apdex. Evaluat reports LCP, INP, CLS, and FCP.

Do I write code for Locust?

Yes. Locust tests are Python. Evaluat records journeys in a real browser with no code.

What is the Executive Summary?

After a test, Evaluat produces an Executive Summary: a plain-language verdict with a health score, the most important findings ranked by severity, and recommended fixes, grounded in the run's Core Web Vitals, Apdex, error rates, and slowest URLs. It turns a dense report into a two-minute read you can share with stakeholders.

Can Evaluat do protocol or API load like Locust?

No. Evaluat tests user-facing web applications in the real browser. High-scale protocol and API load is a different layer, outside what Evaluat does.

Does Evaluat keep a record of every virtual user?

Yes. Every virtual user has session video, full network logs, console output, and step-by-step pass and fail status. When a run regresses you can watch the exact session that failed instead of inferring it from aggregate charts.

Is Evaluat a replacement for Locust?

For real-browser experience under load with no code, yes. Free, self-hosted, high-scale protocol load is outside what Evaluat does.

Keep comparing