No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

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
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
13th
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
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 12.0%, down from 16.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad12.0%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other84.5%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.
AnantJoshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director Intelligent Automation at Truglobal
Performance testing has delivered diverse global retail loads and generates clear diagnostic reports
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the load generation, I find that the cost increases, especially when I want to generate a load for a global customer with different loads in different regions.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"The ability to conceptualize the experience for users is great, the price as the bang for your buck is good, the user interface is quite user friendly, and the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify."
"Customer service is excellent; they're very responsive and willing to work extra hours, and in the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"Compared to support at our previous product, they're more responsive and they're more knowledgeable."
"We are able to use NeoLoad to quickly expand performance testing to all critical business applications and address some key performance issues."
"NeoLoad is more user-friendly than HPE LoadRunner."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The best features of this tool, which I value the most in Tricentis NeoLoad, are the convenient predefined set of metrics for different platforms, and it was most easy to set up and start running."
"The solution is a UI-based tool, so it's easy to use because we don't have to do actual recording with it. This makes it easier to use, and, in terms of speed, it's a bit faster than other tools when it comes to scripting."
"The solution has provided us with options to improve our applications by allowing us to design scenarios, and export our scripts to the Git repository, CACD integration, Dynatrace, and AppDynamics integration."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
 

Cons

"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well."
"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."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It wasn't easy to learn how to use NeoLoad and it has a bit of a learning curve."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"The support needs to be improved, especially when you are looking for a quick turnaround because of the fast-paced environment we work in."
"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."
"It needs to support SAP GUI-based applications, which forms 60-70% of our portfolio, as well as Windows (client install) and Citrix-based applications."
"Almost everything about NewLoad looks good, but I would like to have an indication of the variables for error messages appearing in the error tab."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We purchased a license for two years."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"The tool is not cheap."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"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 cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
903,118 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
Performing Arts
14%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 Enterprise13
Large Enterprise51
 

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 use case for the product is that if this is in the phone, it could start repairing using the product; it's an ERB application. It's a priority to use the two tools Tricentis NeoLoad ratio to the...
What needs improvement with Tricentis NeoLoad?
For Tricentis NeoLoad, I don't think there is much that needs improvement. Probably the use of the features can be made much more user-friendly, but this one didn't take it. Other than that, I'm no...
 

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: June 2026.
903,118 professionals have used our research since 2012.