We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The product is expensive."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 72 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
