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

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
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
7.8
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is 6.3%, down from 8.5% 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.
Sangeetha Alur - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface
I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good. But earlier, the support was actually very wonderful. I started using NeoLoad right from 2011. So, there is room for improvement in customer service and support. It requires a lot of justification and a lot of emails that you need to send back and forth. But earlier, when I was working with Siemens, the integration of the NeoLoad team and Siemens team was very good, and the support was excellent. As soon as you raised a ticket, we had very good support, but that changed after Tricentis.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"LoadRunner's UI is project-convenient, allowing easier simulation of real-time scenarios and producing comprehensive reports that are effortless to read."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the 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."
 

Cons

"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despite its advantages, leading them to alternatives like JMeter and RPT."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in."
"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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ROI is 200%."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"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."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"We purchased the license via SAP."
"The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten."
"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."
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"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."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"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."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 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
22%
Computer Software Company
18%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
50%
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: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.