Comparison

Evaluat vs LoadForge

Choosing a load tool is a buyer decision: which product answers the peak-traffic experience question for your site, and which one belongs in protocol or API capacity work. Here is where each fits, written as fairly as we can manage.

Reviewed 18 July 2026 Competitor claims reflect publicly available vendor materials reviewed on that date.

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.

LoadForge

Locust-based cloud load testing

LoadForge is a commercial cloud load-testing platform built on open-source Locust. Its core is Python-scripted HTTP and protocol load, with an add-on browser-testing mode (Chrome via Playwright) that runs at lower concurrency for UX checks and visual regression.

The categorical difference: LoadForge is a developer-first cloud load tester built on Locust: its core is Python-scripted HTTP load, with an add-on browser mode at lower concurrency for UX checks. Evaluat runs an isolated real browser for every virtual user under load with no code, reports Core Web Vitals and Apdex, and retains per-session video, network, and console forensics.

At a glance

Capability comparison

Capability	Evaluat	LoadForge
Real browser for every virtual user		Low concurrency add-on
No-code scenario builder
Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) 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
Visual regression (screenshot diffs)
UK and EU infrastructure
HTTP / API / protocol load at scale
Code-defined tests and CI (Python)	Visual scenarios

*Executive Summary is not available on the Starter plan.

When LoadForge is the right call

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

You need high-volume HTTP, API, or backend load. LoadForge's Locust engine drives tens of thousands of virtual users per generator across HTTP, GraphQL, WebSocket, and databases, the kind of capacity and breaking-point test a real-browser-per-user tool is not built for. Evaluat does no protocol load.

You want code-level control and deep CI automation. LoadForge tests are Python locustfiles in version control, with first-class GitHub Actions, a CLI, and scheduled runs. If your team prefers code and pipeline-native load tests, LoadForge fits that workflow.

When Evaluat is the right call

Evaluat runs an isolated browser for every user under load.

You want isolated browser metrics for every user under load, with forensics retained. Evaluat runs an isolated real browser for every virtual user and reports LCP, INP, CLS, plus FCP and Apdex, with session video, network logs, and console for each user. As of the published date, LoadForge's browser mode runs at roughly five to ten instances per generator as a separate low-concurrency UX test beside the main HTTP load.

You want a plain-language verdict, not a metrics dashboard. Evaluat produces an Executive Summary: a verdict with a health score, the key findings ranked by severity, and recommended fixes. LoadForge surfaces anomaly detection and recommendations within its metrics, not a written verdict you can hand to a stakeholder.

You need session video and console, not just screenshots. Evaluat keeps session video, full network logs, console output, and step-by-step pass and fail for every virtual user. As of the published date, LoadForge's browser mode captures screenshots and visual-regression diffs, not session video or browser console logs.

You need data residency. Evaluat keeps test data in the region the test ran in, with live test regions in the UK and the EU. LoadForge offers multiple load-origin regions, which is not the same as a data-residency commitment.

Common questions

FAQ

Does LoadForge measure Core Web Vitals?

As of the published date, LoadForge's browser mode can capture some Core Web Vitals (such as LCP and CLS), but only in a separate, low-concurrency browser test, not on its main high-volume HTTP load. Evaluat reports Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), plus FCP, from an isolated real browser for every virtual user.

Is LoadForge's browser mode the same as Evaluat?

No. As of the published date, LoadForge runs browser checks at roughly five to ten instances per generator as a separate UX test beside HTTP load. Evaluat runs an isolated real browser for every virtual user as the main test, with per-session forensics retained.

Does LoadForge have an Apdex score?

Yes, LoadForge auto-calculates Apdex, and so does Evaluat. Evaluat reports it from a real browser alongside Core Web Vitals.

What is the Executive Summary?

After a test, you can generate 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 HTTP or API load like LoadForge?

No. Evaluat tests user-facing web applications in the real browser. High-volume HTTP 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 LoadForge?

For real-browser experience under load with retained forensics, yes. High-volume HTTP and API load is outside what Evaluat does.

Methodology

Sources

We compare each product against the buyer job it is built to do, using first-party vendor documentation and product materials. Features can change; check the linked sources for the current vendor position.