--- title: "Evaluat vs Locust: real browsers, no code" description: "Compare Locust's open-source Python protocol testing with Evaluat's no-code, real-browser testing and per-session evidence." url: "https://www.evaluat.com/vs/locust" last_modified: "2026-07-19" --- Comparison # Evaluat vs Locust 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 19 July 2026 Competitor claims reflect publicly available vendor materials reviewed on that date. ![Evaluat logo](https://www.evaluat.com/favicon.svg) 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 logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/locust.png) 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, reports Core Web Vitals and Apdex, and can generate an Executive Summary. At a glance ## Capability comparison | Capability | Evaluat | Locust | | ------------------------------------------ | ---------------- | ---------------- | | Real browser per virtual user | Yes | Plugin, headless | | No-code scenario builder | Yes | No | | Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) under load | Yes | No | | Apdex score | Yes | No | | Executive Summary | Yes | No | | Per-session video for every user | Yes | No | | Full network and console logs per session | Yes | No | | Step-by-step pass/fail playback | Yes | Partial | | Hosted, no infrastructure to manage | Yes | No | | UK and EU infrastructure | Yes | Self-hosted | | HTTP / API / any-protocol load at scale | No | Yes | | Open source and free | No | Yes | | Code-defined tests (Python) and CI | Visual scenarios | Yes | \*Executive Summary is not available on the Starter plan. *** 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, plus FCP and Apdex, from a journey authored in a visual step editor. 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 can distil a 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 test data in the region the test ran in, with live test regions in the UK and the EU. 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? As of the published date, no. Locust reports percentile response-time statistics, with no native Core Web Vitals or Apdex. Evaluat reports Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), plus 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, 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 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. 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. - [Locust product site](https://locust.io/) - [Locust documentation](https://docs.locust.io/en/stable/) Keep comparing ## Compare Evaluat with other tools - [![AppLoader logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/apploader.svg) Evaluat vs AppLoader](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/apploader) - [![Cavisson NetStorm logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/cavisson.png) Evaluat vs Cavisson NetStorm](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/cavisson) - [![JMeter logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/jmeter.png) Evaluat vs JMeter](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/jmeter) - [Evaluat vs k6](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/k6) - [![Loadero logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/loadero.png) Evaluat vs Loadero](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/loadero) - [![LoadForge logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/loadforge.png) Evaluat vs LoadForge](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/loadforge) - [![Loadium logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/loadium.png) Evaluat vs Loadium](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/loadium) - [![LoadView logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/loadview.png) Evaluat vs LoadView](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/loadview) - [![OctoPerf logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/octoperf.png) Evaluat vs OctoPerf](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/octoperf) - [![Web Performance Load Tester logo](https://www.evaluat.com/logos/competitors/web-performance.png) Evaluat vs Web Performance Load Tester](https://www.evaluat.com/vs/web-performance) [All comparisons](https://www.evaluat.com/vs) See it for yourself Test in real browsers.\ Debug in real sessions. ## A demo, on *your* site. 30 minutes, no slides. We'll set up a real scenario against your application, run it, and show you what the report tells you that Locust wouldn't. [Book a demo](https://www.evaluat.com/demo?intent=vs-locust) [Back to homepage](https://www.evaluat.com/)