Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is 6.2%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 15.7%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment
Over the last eighteen months, our focus has primarily revolved around tool selection, procurement, Proof of Concepts (POCs), approval and implementation. Recently, we have successfully implemented the solution and are currently delving into its features. The key features of Neoload are: * Utilization of Tosca Functional automation test scripts for executing performance tests, resulting in significant time savings and ease of script reuse with minimal modifications. * A shallow learning curve - no prerequisite programming language or performance testing expertise is necessary to operate this tool. We provided training to our technical, functional, and testing teams for seamless utilization. * Reduced effort for script maintenance when compared to alternative performance testing tools.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"It has offered me some reliability against other products, like JMeter or some other tools."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's most valuable features are load simulation and creating correlation for parameters."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"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."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"The stability is okay."
 

Cons

"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Tricentis NeoLoad's mobile platform acts as a stand-alone application but needs to be integrated with the main interface"
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We purchased the license via SAP."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"There is an ROI. What LoadRunner does, is it prevents failures when there are many, many concurrent users in the systems of a company."
"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"For Performance Center, you have to add additional load generators, and then you can do more. I think it is a matter of the price, in terms of how many machines you can buy."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"From a licensing cost perspective, I rate the product an eight out of ten since it is a cheap solution that looks costly for certain areas."
"The licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
"The tool's pricing is somewhat higher than licensed tools like LoadRunner. The approximate cost is around $25,000. There are no additional charges for maintenance or support. Everything is included in the package we have."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000."
"I don't have information on the licensing cost of Tricentis NeoLoad because my manager handles that. From a testing perspective and based on company requirements, the current license is for one thousand users."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Educational Organization
52%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
Do you recommend Tricentis NeoLoad?
I highly recommend Tricentis NeoLoad for companies that are in need of a versatile load and performance testing tool. This relatively inexpensive solution is recognized by organizations like Oxford...
What is your primary use case for Neotys NeoLoad?
Tricentis NeoLoad is a standard tool for testing from an application coverage and reporting aspect. At our company, the tool is primarily used for performance testing to calculate the user-handling...
What do you like most about Tricentis NeoLoad?
The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individu...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, Micro Focus Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.