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

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
6.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, increases ROI, and offers cost-efficient automation, despite needing skilled users for optimal performance.
Sentiment score
7.0
Tricentis NeoLoad delivers significant ROI by enhancing testing efficiency, saving costs, and quickly addressing performance issues.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.0
Selenium HQ's open-source model means no official support, but extensive community resources offer effective help for troubleshooting.
Sentiment score
7.6
Tricentis NeoLoad offers responsive, expert support, praised for flexibility, though some experience occasional delays; overall satisfaction remains high.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
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.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
I can rate it around eight because I think they are much faster than OpenText or Micro Focus.
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Selenium HQ is scalable and efficient for large scenarios, though hardware and configuration can impact performance.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad efficiently scales for varying user volumes, supporting large applications with high user satisfaction and deployment flexibility.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
For scalability, I can rate Tricentis NeoLoad around three.
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Selenium HQ is stable across platforms, with minor issues in Internet Explorer; most find Chrome and Firefox satisfactory.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis NeoLoad is generally stable, though large-scale performance tests and environment settings may cause minor stability issues.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Room For Improvement

Selenium HQ requires better browser support, enhanced reporting, frequent updates, mobile testing, improved documentation, and user-friendly features.
NeoLoad needs protocol support, UI improvements, affordable pricing, better documentation, and refined reporting for large projects.
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.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
The smallest license fee is very high, and there is no starter package at the moment.
Performance.Test.Consulting at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
I would probably like to see some new functionalities for Tricentis NeoLoad, such as a converting mechanism.
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
 

Setup Cost

Selenium HQ is a cost-effective, open-source tool, though additional expenses may arise for maintenance, implementation, and expertise.
Tricentis NeoLoad is seen as cost-effective and flexible, adaptable to business needs, but costs can rise with expanded use.
 

Valuable Features

Selenium HQ provides cost-free, adaptable, cross-platform testing with customization, CI tool compatibility, and a supportive community.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers easy script creation, integration, and comprehensive analysis for effective performance testing across various environments.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues.
Performance.Test.Consulting at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
I find that my team is using the features at Tricentis NeoLoad most effectively, as my role is to get that data out of the tool, and they do the analysis.
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (5th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
 

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 4.0%, up 3.7% compared to last year.
Tricentis NeoLoad, on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 10.7% mindshare, down 15.9% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.0%
Tricentis Tosca10.1%
OpenText Functional Testing6.8%
Other79.1%
Functional Testing Tools
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad10.7%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.6%
Apache JMeter10.4%
Other65.30000000000001%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

NK
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
Automation revolutionizes testing efficiency and cost savings while ensuring smooth deployment
The challenges I faced while integrating Selenium HQ into my existing systems relate to historical data, which requires going back six years. I have to traverse if there were any challenges because I am sure if there were any, they must have been documented in our ALM documents. The multi-browser support of Selenium HQ impacts my testing process primarily since it is being used in Edge and Chrome browsers. It all depends on our customers. I haven't heard of any challenges with other browsers such as Opera or Mozilla Firefox, as these two browsers are what we primarily use. When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline. This has definitely saved a lot of money for us.
SK
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Performance testing has improved daily analysis workflows and supports detailed repair decisions
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 not sure what could be improved. I would probably like to see some new functionalities for Tricentis NeoLoad, such as a converting mechanism, so that if my earlier project could be running, loader, some of the tools, if they have the converter-enabled in the back to the tool, probably I can just use the converter, and they would do the script conversion. For our script, they are open to order at the new system. Other than that, probably they can bring them into that suite together to the new role so they can utilize that as well to do some data population there. For now, we could have some product to create the data, and then we would like to ask in another. Then we did two reviews; it probably says that has been enabled for the tool. That will be once using so that we can have a single source which can run yet, as it's currently running one for a function or a performance. They don't have anything for this data, actually. That is also there, so we can just move. We can just move left to that. That can be used as a platform for both functional support system, but we can do that as very effective. If there are something like service utilization and the ability to place some of the visible analogs, that would make it much easier to have one tool that scales all the services.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,915 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
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise52
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise51
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis NeoLoad?
The vendor offers flexible licensing options. Tricentis NeoLoad has a SaaS platform. The solution can probably be available between 30 and 50 thousand per year, while open-source tools cost way less.
 

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, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2026.
893,915 professionals have used our research since 2012.