Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

We use the solution for Web HTTP and SAP protocols. Whenever projects are associated with Web HTTP and SAP, we use the tool based on proof-of-concept needs.

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.

Tricentis NeoLoad's ability to handle complex scripting is the most valuable for web-based application testing. Compared to other tools, it is much faster. Complex scripting might take a day with other tools, but with the product, we can complete it in one or two hours at most.

We are currently integrating NeoLoad with Jenkins. For APM, we can integrate it with Dynatrace to monitor and trace issues.

If one person opens any script, another person won't be able to work on it simultaneously. If they can improve that feature, it would be helpful for everyone. I found that incorporating all the scripts into a single project was the challenging part. This is because we are working on different domains—I'm on one domain, and others are on another. We need to handle all these scripts cautiously.

I have been working with the product for six years.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. 

The tool's support responds within three hours. 

The main competitors for the tool that I have experience with are Micro Focus LoadRunner and JMeter, an open-source tool.

The solution's deployment is easy. You just need to get the executable file, install it, and activate the license.

I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten. 

Whenever possible, it's better to go with open-source. Consider cost optimization. Tricentis NeoLoad is a good fit when you need to do scripting within tight timelines. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case is for web applications and also SAP GUI—not SAP Applications but the UI version of SAP. For both these areas, it was working fine from the NeoLoad side.

The solution has been moved to the cloud version.

The first benefit is that it's quite cheaper. In the market there are mainly three tools which dominate: JMeter, LoadRunner, and NeoLoad. JMeter is open source. LoadRunner is quite expensive but has quite good features. NeoLoad is competitively quite cheaper compared to LoadRunner, and it provides great features, except in some areas. For instance, it doesn't allow some SAP applications. There are some areas where it's a little bit tough but other than that, it's quite good.

I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools. JMeter is a little bit tough, but LoadRunner gives you many features. For any codeless value, it is easy to detect from the NeoLoad side.

The SAP area could be improved. Not the GUI applications, SAP log-on, or something like that. We can see features and use NeoLoad properly in all the normal SAP log-on areas. I haven't tried it, but I have heard that Citrix-based applications don't work properly in the SAP application. In those types of different areas, there could be more protocol flexibility.

If there is a high number of users on NeoLoad—like around 5,000 or 6,000—it sometimes feels like that might be a bottleneck for the performance. That could be improved. With more users, there shouldn't be any issues from the tool side.

With scripting in a different browser, sometimes there are compatibility issues and it doesn't generate the script properly. Those types of crashes could be removed.

I was using NeoLoad six months ago because of some performance testing issues. Previous to using NeoLoad, we used LoadRunner.

The stability is good. It's quite reliable. Compared with a different browser, it sometimes creates problems and bugs. With the number of users increasing, sometimes the CPU and system where it was connected increases because of trade concurrency or something like that. That can be a little bit problematic. Other than that, things are fine.

Ongoing maintenance is not required. Whenever we have deployed the tools, if any version upgrade happens, we just check what the upgrade is exactly and someone on the deployment team connects the documents and everything. They check the document accordingly and update the version. It's not complicated.

We have roughly eight to nine performance testers, including the performance lead, the performance engineers, and the performance testers. Everyone will be running different projects. We'll be using the tool and running the performance testing based on the license and everything. The user count license will be ramping up the load. There are instances where multiple teams are using NeoLoad at the same time with different licenses. There has been no conflict error with each other, and we haven't seen a problem with different license things. Because we have two licenses, two tests can be executed parallel to each other.

The solution is scalable. After the number of users increases to 5,000 or 6,000, we have occasionally found problems. Below that, things are fine and the response times are good.

Tech support is okay. When we had 50 users, we reached out to the tech support team and within two to three days we received a response. The time took longer because it was a complicated problem. Response time is perfect.

I previously used LoadRunner. One of the reasons we had to switch to Neotys was because it was quite cheaper, but I still prefer LoadRunner to NeoLoad.

The deployment process is very straightforward. It's not complex. Only one associate deployed it, so not much effort was required.

There was no impact on the work that we used to do with performance testing when we moved to NeoLoad. Our normal performance testing was able to continue and it was going perfectly well. Return on investment was better because our deliverables were not getting impacted and it was cheaper, so return on investment increased a lot compared to LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I wouldn't give it a 10 because there are some issues that need to be resolved from the tool side.

Before using the tool, you need to understand the product you are going to design, the different types of performance applications that you are going to do performance testing with, and whether or not NeoLoad supports it. If yes, then go ahead. Otherwise, I would say go back to LoadRunner because whatever the application is, LoadRunner will support it.

My company uses Tricentis NeoLoad for critical projects, so its use cases vary. To make it short, the protocols and web services include the areas around Tricentis NeoLoad.

The most valuable features of the solution are visible when we work on web services in our company since it seems to be much more competitive in nature when compared to LoadRunner. When we work on certain protocols in our company in Tricentis NeoLoad, we find it much better than LaodRunner. Tricentis NeoLoad is comparatively faster and quicker when compared to LoadRunner.

The coverage provided by Tricentis NeoLoad is not much when compared to LoadRunner. Cost-wise, Tricentis NeoLoad is cheaper than LoadRunner. Both the aforementioned mentioned points create a balance between Tricentis NeoLoad and LoadRunner. If a person has to specifically look into a certain product, then that person can go ahead with Tricentis NeoLoad. There isn't much when it comes to the licensing models offered by Tricentis NeoLoad, while LoadRunner offers different licensing options. Considering some of our company's requirements, we would consider Tricentis NeoLoad since it is price-wise a cheap solution. When it comes to LoadRunner, they offer cloud licenses along with different sets of licenses. In certain areas, the licensing models offered by LoadRunner are better, while at other times, the licensing models offered by Tricentis NeoLoad are better. If Tricentis NeoLoad offers different kinds of licensing versions, then the solution's price can be much lower than LoadRunner and the other solutions in the market.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for four years. I use Tricentis NeoLoad Version 7 and Version 8. I did not work on the latest version of the solution owing to some of its issues. I work as a consultant for the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten since some versions of the solution are not stable, and we saw a lot of issues with them in our company. If a person wants to work on the solution, then that person needs to know which version is stable and which is not. If a person doesn't know which version of the solution is stable, then that person may face a lot of errors when running certain executions.

Considering a specific set of protocols, Tricentis NeoLoad's scalability is the same as LoadRunner. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup phase a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises. In our company, we work with the cloud version of the solution. The solution is deployed on the cloud model if necessary. We run the solution on the cloud model in our company for stakeholders and teams not locally available but would like to get involved with the solution. If a team planning to use the solution is available locally and falls under the same geolocation, we can go for the on-premises version in our company.

The deployment process of the solution took around two days.

Tricentis NeoLoad doesn't offer different pricing models. In our company, when we go with short-term projects, Tricentis NeoLoad serves as an investment tool.

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.

There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side. From the cost perspective, users should consider whether the solution is useful for them from a long-term or short-term point of view while also considering the integrations and loads they plan to manage with the solution. I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad and LoadRunner to those planning to purchase a solution.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

Tricentis NeoLoad was for a sports client of ours, and they had a web based application, and that application had a lot of APIs floating into a lot of sports applications. They were sports-based solutions, where you have people going to baseball sporting events, registering for the events, getting tickets, etc. That was the load that we tested with Tricentis NeoLoad.

The API side of Tricentis NeoLoad is good. The API support is much better with this solution, compared with the competition. Pricing for it is also more affordable than its competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner.

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.

What we want to see in this solution is how it integrates with the entire suite of Tricentis Solutions. Tricentis has a very successful product in Tricentis Tosca, and that is a product that is more focused on test automation. They have test management solutions. They have different management. Performance management or performance engineering within one solution would be a big winner for Tricentis NeoLoad, so this is an area for improvement for this solution. Otherwise, it is a really good tool.

I still need to take a closer look at the integration of Tricentis NeoLoad. I want to see how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now. This is a recent acquisition, so we want to see how these results come together: test automation, performance testing, etc., so that's what I'm looking for.

Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable.

We have used Tricentis NeoLoad and we find it scalable.

Tricentis acquired this product a year ago, so prior to that acquisition, the product was owned by an independent company, and their support was really good. We were supporting from India, and we had constant support from them. We never had any challenges with support for Tricentis NeoLoad.

We previously used Micro Focus LoadRunner, and switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because of the cost aspect, and we also found that Tricentis NeoLoad is also a good solution. It has very similar facilities like Micro Focus LoadRunner, but some of the features that are lacking there is more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which Micro Focus LoadRunner easily supports. The API side of Tricentis NeoLoad was good, so we were able to do really good work with the solution. We bought it recently.

Compared to Micro Focus LoadRunner, the setup for Tricentis NeoLoad is easy.

Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner.

Pricing is really less compared to Micro Focus LoadRunner, but once this product goes under the Tricentis umbrella, we don't know how much are they charging for it now. I have not looked into the most recent pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad.

I have experience with performance testing tools, particularly Micro Focus LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, and Tricentis NeoLoad. We also did a POC with Tricentis Flood, but that is now gone. We also did some work with Microsoft, but they have started removing it. Even Microsoft provides a solution for performance testing: Visual Studio.

I'm rating Tricentis NeoLoad seven out of ten, while Micro Focus LoadRunner I'm rating a five out of ten. I'm not giving Tricentis NeoLoad a score of ten because I want to see more out of it in terms of integration, particularly how it integrates with other Tricentis products.

There is a customized version for BlazeMeter, but it's a solution that cannot be compared with either Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad, because it is more of an open source solution, so you do not get support that's comparable with the support you get from paid solutions.

Tricentis NeoLoad has good user interface. Users don't need to learn any coding language to perform performance scripting. Additionally, it offers correlation, which is a concept for handling dynamic values. NeoLoad provides an easy mechanism to accomplish this, similar to LoadRunner.

There are certain activities that need to be performed to coordinate these activities effectively. NeoLoad is one tool for all the requirements, but the licensing varies. 

I've done it for certification purposes. I've used LoadRunner and JMeter for scalability testing. So, if you're scaling up with more nodes, you'll require additional machines and load injectors.

I like the content of Tricentis NeoLoad and receive their task notifications. I'm currently in the process of completing their certification, which is very good. It's highly interactive, and the use-case-based scenarios are engaging.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for a year.

NeoLoad is offering good support.

Neutral

The solution is expensive tool. If I put LoadRunner and NeoLoad side by side, NeoLoad is expensive than LoadRunner by 15%.

We should ask the implementing managers why they are proposing JMeter only now. They may be considering it due to its status as a free open-source tool, which is why I am forced to use it instead of Tricentis NeoLoad or LoadRunner. However, LoadRunner services are specifically supported, although they sometimes take a lot of time and may not always resolve issues.

Due to numerous issues, people are inclined to explore new testing options. NeoLoad is a good tool for this purpose as it offers a wide range of features that are ready to use.

When selecting tools for load testing, it's important to consider NeoLoad, as it provides everything under one roof. This is unlike other tools where understanding which tool to use can be a challenge, leading to initial difficulties. Additionally, JMeter, despite being free, can be complex to use.

If I am using a Postgres tool and redeploying the pressure, the time and effort required for learning and scaling will be more efficient with NeoLoad compared to JMeter. This efficiency will lead to greater productivity.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We are using it for performance testing.

It's improving our test lifecycle time. It's taking less time compared to the previous tool.

The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support.

The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times. 

There should also be support for more protocols for desktop applications.

I have been using this solution since 2019. It has been four years. 

I'd rate it a four out of ten in terms of stability. The GUI isn't stable enough.

I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of scalability. 

Within our team, we have around 25 users. Their roles are testers, test leads, and test managers.

We aren't planning to increase its usage. The way we are using NeoLoad and other tools is pretty streamlined. We are using NeoLoad 90% as per our requirements, and we aren't planning to increase its usage.

I'd rate their support a four out of ten. The problem is that we have to raise a support ticket in the portal. They usually take a long time to reply. The first or second response from the team usually covers the basic tasks, which the team would have already done before reaching out to their support team. So, by the time we get a proper response from them, we might have moved away from that particular project or we might have found some alternative. That part is a bit bad.

Neutral

We were using Micro Focus LoadRunner. We switched because of the organization's requirements.

As compared to other tools, the initial setup is easy, but there is some complexity that comes with the Kubernetes-based setup of one of the components. So, it's a bit easier than others, but there are certain aspects that make it difficult. I'd rate it a six out of ten in terms of the ease of the setup.

Its deployment took a couple of weeks, which also included testing. 

It was deployed in-house. We deployed it ourselves based on the documentation.

For deployment, we only need one employee who has experience in cloud deployment. For maintenance also, one admin is enough. 

I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing.

We evaluated open-source tools such as Scala and JMeter. We went for NeoLoad because of the collaboration feature, which isn't there in Scala and JMeter. Another reason was the enterprise support, which doesn't come with open-source tools.

It's definitely worth a try. Compared to LoadRunner and other tools, it gives more flexibility and is easier to maintain. 

Overall, I'd rate Tricentis NeoLoad a seven out of ten.

The two standout features for us are:

• Team Server Collaboration - as is the case with many MNCs like ours, teams/team members are spread geographically at various locations. The Team Server module is a boon for such teams as multiple users can work on the same project simultaneously and check-in the changes. It also helps manage and allocate virtual users (of shared license) for execution of multiple projects at same time.
• Results & Analysis - NeoLoad provides comprehensive results for any load test. The results can be drilled-down to minute levels (from scenario level all the way to individual request level) of any transaction which makes root cause analysis very effective. NeoLoad can also consolidate results from different sources and the results are graphical (one can build custom graphs for any transaction) and colourful for easier interpretation.

Other advantages are

1. GUI driven recording makes it easier to record and prepare test scenarios without need for extensive coding knowledge thereby enabling tool users to ramp up faster
2. Supports a ton of protocols plus additional plugins such as Jenkins, AppDynamics, etc.
3. Custom scripts and frameworks can be built
4. Recording and simulating mobile applications is simple yet realistic

NeoLoad is a robust and versatile tool. With plugins for CI tools like Jenkins, NeoLoad is configured to automatically trigger small load tests on modules each time there is a build update. This has enabled us to identify performance issues for our clients at a very early stage. It has undoubtedly an impact during larger scale enterprise performance tests when all the modules are integrated and tested as cost to fix performance issues increases with later stages of deployment.

We have raised a few support tickets for certain feature sets/improvement areas.
These include permanent fixes for a few stability issues discussed in the following question and implementation of more robust solutions for media streaming protocols, TCP/IP and websocket protocols.

Also, there are a few changes in the latest version, 5.2, which have brought in many improvements but have removed certain features. For example, v5.2 has done away with the 90th percentile reporting for response times, which was present in earlier versions. While this is a small deviation, it still is important for organizations using it.

The tool can hang and take a long time to open projects if the size is large and if many graphs and result templates are stored. Certain protocols although supported by NeoLoad need to have custom solutions built (e.g. web socket connections) while solutions for certain other protocols such as media streaming protocols like HDS, HLS, etc. are still in the nascent stage.

We have used NeoLoad since late 2009.

There is no specific maximum project size defined (actual NeoLoad project size). This size is dependent on number of user journeys in the project, number of scenarios defined, number of graph templates stored, and number of results stored and so on. The bigger the project, the slower it opens in the tool (as expected) but many times can be excruciatingly slow. The other drawback is that the graphs and results may not get saved correctly. With the latest versions of NeoLoad, this issue has been significantly fixed but it can still occur at an undesirable moment as the optimum size of a project can only be determined by trial-and-error. Our experience has taught us to keep multiple backups of same project under two categories for such exigencies – the first category would contain backup of the project with previous results and graphs while the second one would have only the project (VUs and scenarios) but with previous execution results and graph templates removed.

The other issue we faced was with respect to results generation. If we need to abort a performance test that is in progress, all one has to do is click the stop button. However, if the stop button is clicked twice inadvertently or clicked twice because it still showed “consolidating results” message for eons after the first click, the results ultimately generated would get corrupted. Either the results would not show for all virtual users executed or would not get generated at all. The last time we checked, Neotys did not have a concrete solution to this problem even after analysing the execution logs and troubleshooting it. Their “solution” was to check our stop policy for the scenarios executed (to make sure all virtual users reached their ‘end’ state to generate results) and also to check if any antivirus or firewall was impeding result generation (an antivirus or firewall can prevent NeoLoad from writing results to your folder). From our side, our stop policies were fine and there was no antivirus/firewall to block NeoLoad so the solutions were not that useful. As a workaround, we would click just once to abort an execution run and wait for the results to be generated even if it took a while.

The customer service and technical support is excellent if you are a paid customer. The turnaround time and SLA for a priority one - Urgent - issue/ticket is almost immediate. For less priority tickets it is quick (usually a couple of hours) and the representatives even help build a custom solution for your project if need be. However, if you are using the trial version, you would have to depend on NeoLoad forums for answers. On the flip side, Neotys documentation available on their side is detailed and exhaustive which should answer most questions when you are evaluating the product.

We have used a host of other solutions such as LoadRunner, JMeter, WebLOAD, SOASTA, etc. While the choice of the solution depends on various factors such as open source vs commercial tool, protocols used, number of virtual users etc. NeoLoad comes up trumps on most factors which were needed for our clients namely:

1. Cost
2. Ease of deployment and scalability to test for high user loads (in the range of 100,000s users for large enterprise tests)
3. Ability to monitor performance at various levels of architecture
4. Graphical representation of results
5. Detailed comparison can be seen in the sheet attached

Initial setup is a breeze. The installation is a complete package without having to switch between standalone modules for recording scenarios, execution and analysis which is not the case in say, LoadRunner or WebLOAD which has different modules for each (like VuGen, Controller & Analysis).

Neotys also offers their own cloud infrastructure to leverage upon for tests with larger user loads which can be configured to each project needs. However, if you are setting up your own cloud infrastructure on say, Amazon AWS, you would have to be equipped with enough knowledge to set up the images (AMIs) and configure the necessary IPs & locations for the test.

When we started out in 2009-2010, we did use the vendor team to guide us through and setup the necessary infrastructure. Over the years, we have built a strong in-house team and have setup our own infrastructure and cloud instances.

Depending on the technical expertise of your team, you can choose to implement in-house or avail the support of the vendor team. While the basic installation is straightforward, the vendor team could help you choose the right hardware systems/configuration for localized load generation or help you configure Neotys cloud for IP simulation or handling larger user loads.

Neotys offers various licensing plans to suit every business. The free version comes with 50 users with all protocols included for small load tests. The paid licensing plan depends on number of virtual users needed (to simulate the load), duration, the protocols under test, number of concurrent applications being tested, cloud usage etc. For example, the licence can be availed even for a day, a month, or a year depending on the need. In that sense, the licence cost can range from $1500 to >$20000. A general rule of thumb is the longer the licence period and the greater number of virtual users results in a lower price over the long term.

Leverage the free version of performance tools to its maximum capability to evaluate and cross check against the performance testing needs for your business to make an informed decision on buying the tool. The pros outweigh the cons and so NeoLoad is highly recommended over its competitors.

We use the solution for load and performance testing activities for web-based applications, Siebel CRM, and Oracle E-Business Suite.

The product has enhanced features that let us cut down the script development and maintenance time. We can quickly correlate the values and create the scripts. When there are changes to our application, the maintenance becomes easier. The dashboards are readily available after the executions. The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis.

The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines. The integration with self-service portals and tools must be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The tool is stable. The initial versions had issues. With every new version, the product is improving and becoming more stable and robust. I rate the stability a seven to eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven to seven and a half out of ten. More than 25 people are using the product in our organization.

We have been in contact with the support team. Since Neotys became Tricentis, the turnaround time for support queries has increased considerably. It takes longer to get a response, and it impacts delivery. I would have rated Neotys’ support an eight or eight and a half out of ten. However, in the current state, I rate support a six or six and a half out of ten.

Neutral

We were using tools like LoadRunner along with NeoLoad. However, NeoLoad provided a better balance between the cost and benefits.

The initial setup was quite easy. The deployment can be done quickly for a single set of servers or workstations. However, the time taken depends on how extensive the infrastructure is.

The tool is not cheap. However, the cost is a bit lower than other tools like LoadRunner.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, my recommendation would depend on other parameters like the extent of testing and investment that they may want to do. There is some investment associated with it. It may not be justified if they are just doing load testing as one of the activities. Considering the ease of use, technical setup, and level of support provided, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.