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

Oracle Application Testing Suite 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

Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
14th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (25th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 16.2%, up from 14.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.
RangaReddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible
I really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"The solution is scalable."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"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."
"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."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
 

Cons

"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"The product is expensive."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"The tool is not cheap."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"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."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 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
Government
17%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Educational Organization
49%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
The solution is for continuous performance validation. The important thing is that it's not just for one load test and then forgotten. I try to integrate the performance tests into our pipelines, w...
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

OATS
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Application Testing Suite vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.