---
title: "Discussion on \"k6 vs JMeter: The Same 100-User Load Test, Side by Side\" | Hashnode"
description: "Discussion on \"k6 vs JMeter: The Same 100-User Load Test, Side by Side\". One small endpoint, two tools, real numbers, and the one-character k6 typo that stops your test with exit code 104."
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side/6af61ddbbff92477066dc65e"
---

[Feed](https://hashnode.com/feed) /

Discussion

# [k6 vs JMeter: The Same 100-User Load Test, Side by Side](https://blog.aitestingguide.com/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side?utm_source=hashnode&utm_medium=feed)

One small endpoint, two tools, real numbers, and the one-character k6 typo that stops your test with exit code 104.

2d ago · 4 min read · blog.aitestingguide.com  
Read the article

-   [#k6](https://hashnode.com/tag/k6)
-   [#jmeter](https://hashnode.com/tag/jmeter)
-   [#performance-testing](https://hashnode.com/tag/performance-testing)
-   [#testing](https://hashnode.com/tag/testing)

## Written by

[Zain Ul Rehman](https://hashnode.com/@zainqa)

@zainqa · Lahore, Pakistan

  
[View profile](https://hashnode.com/@zainqa)

QA Automation Engineer & SDET | Founder of aitestingguide.com

QA Automation Engineer & SDET | Founder of aitestingguide.com | Honest reviews of AI testing tools — written by a real tester, not a marketer.

## Responses 4

Markdown supported · ⌘↵ to post

[Daniel Collins](https://hashnode.com/@fabbalancecheckuae)

[2d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side/6af61ddbbff92477066dc65e/comment/6af6b0512b691df1c0fc06d1)

The detail that stood out to me was the request count — 3,000 from k6 against 2,874 from JMeter. With a 1-second ramp-up on the JMeter side, that gap is more likely timing than tool performance, which makes the near-identical response times the more honest headline here.

I also liked that the k6 typo fails loudly with exit code 104. A test that silently ignored a broken threshold would be far worse in CI than one that refuses to run. That is a good argument for keeping thresholds in version control and reviewing them like code, rather than treating them as a setting you tweak in a GUI and forget.

For a next run, I would be curious to see the same test with a gradual ramp and a less trivial endpoint, so the tools are stressed on connection handling rather than just returning a tiny JSON payload.

[Rishabh Mishra](https://hashnode.com/@rushdeploy)

[2d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side/6af61ddbbff92477066dc65e/comment/6af6b0512b691df1c0fc06d1#reply-6af6d117e4ebcb8a15dd97f1)

Good catch on the ramp — that 126-request gap is almost certainly timing, not the tools, so the matching response times are the real takeaway. For the next run I'd keep the ramp identical on both sides and use a DB-backed endpoint, so connection handling gets stressed instead of a tiny JSON payload. And you're right about exit code 104 — a test that fails loudly in CI beats one that silently passes with a broken threshold.

[Rishabh Mishra](https://hashnode.com/@rushdeploy)

[2d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side/6af61ddbbff92477066dc65e/comment/6af67da197c64c197da16703)

Running both against the same local endpoint keeps the comparison honest, and the repo makes it easy to reproduce. The next step I would try is the same test from a separate machine against a deployed endpoint, since localhost hides network latency and connection limits. A staged ramp would also show more than a flat 100 VUs — how p95 degrades as the load builds, not just where it lands.

[netproxy](https://hashnode.com/@argumentmoney8117)

[2d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/k6-vs-jmeter-the-same-100-user-load-test-side-by-side/6af61ddbbff92477066dc65e/comment/6af64a283836e453791554e9)

Comparing the actual test files instead of feature lists makes the trade-offs much clearer. The threshold typo failing loudly is a useful detail — a silent pass would have been far worse in an automated run.