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

RadView WebLOAD 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

RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
13th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
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
66
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 2.7%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 10.0%, down from 15.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad10.0%
RadView WebLOAD2.7%
Other87.3%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Vadim Urintsov - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Tester / Quality Assurance Analyst at Bitnami
An excellent solution for graph testing on programming software
Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software The information provided via the solution and the dashboard is valuable. Additionally, it's interesting as you can view inside information integrated and see the WebLOAD with APM. There is no analytical dashboard…
reviewer2732589 - PeerSpot reviewer
senior test engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Positive experience with seamless setup and responsive support but pricing and version compatibility need improvement
I'm not ready to share what areas of Tricentis NeoLoad have room for improvement now. The price could be more friendly, and it was impossible to continue using the same version of Tricentis NeoLoad, as we were forced to move to the next version. Sometimes there were compatibility problems, and that was a major problem with backward compatibility issues.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"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."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"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."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
 

Cons

"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"Since the ownership of NeoLoad has changed to Tricentis, they have done a very poor job with license management. They changed the license policy very abruptly."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We purchased a license for two years."
"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
"Licence cost is very attractive compared to other vendor tools and also there are many license alternatives."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"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."
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"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.
880,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
13%
Performing Arts
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise49
 

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?
My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some solution on the basis of Tricentis NeoLoad. We tested both virtual infrastructu...
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

No data available
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about RadView WebLOAD vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
880,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.