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

Selenium HQ vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.7
Selenium HQ offers substantial ROI with time savings, efficiency in testing, and no licensing fees, despite initial learning investment.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad enhanced testing efficiency, reduced costs, increased ROI, and saved over one million dollars annually for users.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Selenium HQ relies on community support and online forums for user assistance and troubleshooting rather than official services.
Sentiment score
7.8
Tricentis NeoLoad offers quick, skilled support with fast solutions, efficient assistance, and thorough documentation, especially for high-priority issues.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ generally scales well, with successful implementations in various environments, though challenges can arise due to technical demands.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad efficiently scales with user growth, supporting extensive testing across regions despite occasional high-threshold challenges.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Selenium HQ's stability varies, with stable use reported widely, though issues arise, especially with specific browsers and updates.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad is generally stable but occasionally experiences issues resolved by updates and proper configuration.
 

Room For Improvement

Selenium HQ needs better IE support, cross-browser stability, user-friendly interface, app support, and enhanced documentation for improved usability.
Tricentis NeoLoad needs improvements in protocol support, UI, integration, support resources, and license management for better user appeal.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair.
 

Setup Cost

Selenium HQ is free and appealing to enterprises, though it may incur indirect costs like maintenance and expertise.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers cost-effective, flexible licensing with competitive pricing and scalability, appealing to high-volume users despite some cost concerns.
 

Valuable Features

Selenium HQ is open-source, supports multiple languages, and offers cross-browser compatibility with extensive integration and scalability features.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers quick scripting, intuitive UI, and robust integrations, with codeless scripting enhancing usability and performance.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues.
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
111
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (5th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Selenium HQ is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.7%, down 5.5% compared to last year.
Tricentis NeoLoad, on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 16.2% mindshare, up 14.6% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 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
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
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

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
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

SeleniumHQ
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.