Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

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.

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.

The primary use case of the solution is for performance testing.

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.

The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially.

The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature.

I have been using the solution for just over one year.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable based on your requirements.

The technical support team is good. They have a 72-hour window to respond to our requests and they usually get back to us within 24 hours. If I miss anything in a project the support team will develop the script required as per requirements, and provide a solution to me.

Positive

We previously used LoadRunner but the cost was very high. 

The initial setup is straightforward if you are familiar with the solution. You just need to download and install the solution from their site. If you are installing the solution on one machine it can be running in under one hour. If you are installing the solution on multiple machines you need to first install a controller version followed by a generator that has to be configured in the controller version.

The implementation was completed by our internal vendor team.

The solution requires an annual license.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated LoadRunner and JMeter.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

In older versions, the network protocol only supported up to six users per ID. The latest version 9.4 has been improved by increasing the number of users per ID to 30.

With this solution, you can add users to Tricentis NeoLoad Web so they can visit the site and see what is happening. When running a load test the users have read-only access and can see what is happening on the server side with the number of requests in use, the throughput, and the failure rate.

JMeter is another solution that can support all the protocols but we found that it was not recording properly and would not allow us to customize as required so we chose this solution.

Any person thinking of using this solution must have a minimum knowledge of gathering and using variables, and be familiar with performance testing and JavaScript in order to operate successfully.

I worked for a real estate company and we used this solution to deal with scripting and anything related to documentation; uploading, downloading, etc. The product was built on .NET technology. We also used the product for mobile device performance testing. We had a few devices sitting on the Perfecto cloud, and we integrated those via NeoLoad API. NeoLoad has an integration framework in place for Perfecto so we were able to develop a few scripts, execute them and monitor the performance on a mobile device. I'm a senior test lead. 

The significant improvement to the company was in cost savings which is the main reason we migrated from LoadRunner. NeoLoad is about half the price. 

I have also worked on LoadRunner Micro Focus and JMeter, and when it comes to scripting, NeoLoad is more user-friendly. The capturing of dynamic variables is very simple in NeoLoad and doesn't require the writing of exclusive functions. It's a matter of drag and drop, or choosing an option. Scripting those applications is not a challenging process. NeoLoad is about half the price of JMeter and serves the same purpose. It also has the benefit of mobile integration frameworks which are already in place with the help of APIs. 

Many applications these days have dashboards, video images, and the like. The rendering of heavy-weighted applications can't be scripted via NeoLoad, so we have to use LoadRunner as an extra client. I think that component could be added to NeoLoad where the UI has more object rendering. For now, we cannot test that in NeoLoad and so people tend to go for the two client protocol of LoadRunner. For now, the GUA still sits on Windows so we do the scripting on our local machine and then transfer them to the cloud. It would be great if we could do everything on the cloud with NeoLoad. 

I used this product for two years. 

This is a stable solution that provides good performance. 

The solution is scalable. 

The customer service is good. We are based in India, and Tricentis also has an offshore team, so they're available in all time zones. I work on multi-vendor projects throughout the world. The company provides a flexible service and a fast response time. 

The installation was simple and was carried out in-house. We initially had some issues with crashing but that was related to Windows and not the product. At the time, I was working with a four-member team. 

We saw a good return on investment. In my tenure with NeoLoad over two years, I identified around 43 performance defects. That's a huge amount in a relatively short space of time. 

A couple of years ago, I paid around $USD9,000 per year for 250 users. The license fee includes web protocol, STTP protocol, and API. There might be an additional cost if you want Citrix, RDP or SAP.

This is a user-friendly and straightforward solution with a good support system. Unlike JMeter or LoadRunner, it doesn't require significant coding knowledge. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

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. 

One of our use cases, it was Oracle E-Business Suite (Oracle EBS) application testing. The other one was a migration project for SAP HANA. In those two use cases, we needed to perform benchmarking and increase the coverage from an end-to-end point of view rather than just focusing on the API endpoints. 

We had to automate some of the Oracle form-specific transactions using NeoLoad, as we wanted to expand the coverage. So, I used NeoLoad as a hybrid solution alongside JMeter. Initially, the majority of the volume was on JMeter, but for the Oracle forms usage, which was low, we utilized a low-volume license from NeoLoad.

NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service.

NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area.

In future releases, I think they definitely need a full UI revamp because I believe it's built on Java technology, which feels a bit outdated. I would like to see that being improved. Additionally, increasing the coverage of the correlation templates capabilities would be very useful.

I've used it across around three projects mainly because we provide the best options for our clients. We combine open-source tools with commercial ones. So, in two cases, we encountered limitations with JMeter, mainly because it doesn't offer off-the-shelf support for Oracle forms and SAP GUI. That's when we decided to introduce NeoLoad.

It is a stable solution. When I worked with this tool, the main pain point was finding solutions. They have some good documentation, but it could be improved because sometimes the feature I was looking for was already there, but it took me a while to find it due to the documentation. 

So, NeoLoad can improve the documentation. Otherwise, the tool itself is stable. For our purposes, using it with around 100 users, it was very stable.

It is a scalable solution. I have integrated NeoLoad three times in your personal projects. I would say the main feature that might lag for enterprise usage is the capability to manage scripts in a team environment. You should be able to maintain scripts across multiple users through a source code repository. I'm not sure whether NeoLoad fully supports managing Java programming-like stuff with ease through a source code repository. That might be one aspect that could make it more qualified for enterprise use. 

Other than that,  NeoLoad can support enterprise needs, but I'm not sure about the team environment support with a source code repository. But as for the tool itself, because we are using it at kind of an enterprise level, not extensively, but it caters to most of the requirements.

The customer service and support were good. The initial support I received from them was world-class. They treated the issues as their own, and I would rate it eleven out of ten. It was that good.

Positive

The initial setup is not that complex unless you try to use it against a complex application like Oracle Forms. Oracle always tries to encourage the use of its own proprietary performance testing tool. They make it harder for the clients to use other tools, pushing them to buy their own. That's when the complexity arises. Other than that, it's straightforward and very intuitive. 

As long as you have a basic understanding, it's not that hard to get started. Personally, I came from a JMeter open-source background, so transitioning to NeoLoad wasn't too hard for me.

Initially, we faced some configuration issues, and the documentation was a little lacking, but the support team was very helpful in resolving the problems and guiding me through the setup. After that, using the tool became a walk in the park. However,  NeoLoad can still improve certain aspects.

NeoLoad has a cloud solution, mainly for executing tasks, but the tool itself is an on-premises one. The main issue with these cloud providers is that they should come up with CNA, which is the security certification. Otherwise, people, especially in the government sector, don't want to use them. They are very conservative about security in New Zealand, so they prefer everything to be on-premises mostly. Cloud solutions, like Platform as a Service, are not easily embraced there; they prefer on-premises solutions. So, everything is on-premises.

NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process. Earlier, it was hectic with people. Nowadays, licensing itself is a killer for most products.

For example, we purchased the Tableau license, and they had this on-premise licensing server setup, which is not working at all. So we had to ask them to give us a cloud license, and the discussion is still going on. They are trying to charge us additional stuff for Tableau. So our clients are now in a situation where they might abandon the product due to licensing issues, making it complex. People don't want to go through this. Really, it's easier to use the tool, but licensing itself takes a lot of unwanted complications.

So, with NeoLoad, we gave feedback and asked them to simplify the licensing model, and they came back with a better proposal.

If it weren't for the limitations in supporting Oracle forms and SAP GUI, I would never choose any other tool over JMeter. As for SAP GUI, we shouldn't fix anything unless it's broken, so I prefer sticking with JMeter. These commercial load test tools are insanely priced, especially the load test tools. 

That's why I appreciate that NeoLoad has come down with better, smaller licenses now. It's a good improvement. But I still think they are overpriced. This applies to all these tools, not just NeoLoad. If you look at them, they sometimes charge for virtual user hours, which I don't understand. When you buy a tool and a certain number of virtual users, you shouldn't be charged for hours of virtual use. Instead, you should be charged based on the number of virtual users, and the clients should be able to use it for the period they purchased the license.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. There are certain areas that need improvements in NeoLoad, like UI, correlation templates, and more.

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.

We use the solution for performance testing.

The solution is easy to learn and use.

They should improve the reporting feature of the solution. It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup.

We have been using the solution for two years.

We faced issues with our on-cloud setup once or twice within the past year. Apart from that, the solution is relatively stable.

The solution's scalability depends on the number of users and what they use it for. We have five or six users in our company using the solution. It scales as much as we require on-cloud. The scalability on-premises depends on the number of hardware and licenses we have purchased.

The solution's setup was straightforward. It took five minutes to complete the process. 

The solution is quite expensive. But users can select the features they require and pay accordingly.

The buyers should make a purchase decision depending on the usage of their project protocols. They should use the solution if they have to deal with a load on-premises. It is quite a good product compared with other solutions. But working better for on-premises setup doesn't make it an exceptional product. If you're working with web API only, better products are available.

I rate the solution as a seven 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.

We used it for putting the load on the system. For example, for a big sale of an online marketplace, we created the scripts with performance testing tools such as Neotys and LoadRunner. We used to search for a product and add it to the cart. We used to capture all this traffic through these tools, and then, we used to do the real-time testing. So, we used to simulate the real-world user scenario. For example, if the company was expecting around 20,000 users on a specific day, we used to simulate the volume of 20,000 users on the application. 

The deployment model depends on a client's requirements and licensing. If we have a sufficient budget, we always go for the SaaS model. If we have a limitation of licensing, then we prefer to go for on-premises deployment. We usually need to get support from the admin team to set up everything. We used to take care of this aspect so that the support team will be able to do things on our behalf, such as setting up things in their environment.

We can quickly do scripting with NeoLoad, which makes it easier to give timelines and meet them. We can easily tell a client that within this much time, we can provide the end-to-end scripts, and we'll be able to do the execution along with all the activities. 

The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool.

We can easily do scripting with NeoLoad. We just have to understand the basic functionality to create a script. There is not that much effort that we have to put in. If I have to transfer knowledge to a new person or a beginner, he will also be able to pick it up quickly. 

LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols. With NeoLoad, we can go for the SAP technology, web-based HTTP, and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). If I have to simulate .NET application-based traffic, I won't be able to do that. So, protocol support is a limitation for NeoLoad. It should support more protocols.

One issue that we faced was that multiple users weren't able to work on the same application. We used to create multiple scripts based on the application and based on the projects, and then we used to integrate all of them in a single place. With NeoLoad, if you have to do this activity, to import a script, one user has to log off, and the second user has to copy the script and improve it, which is a time-consuming activity. These are the things that can block any further activity.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

I would rate it a nine out of 10 in terms of scalability. It is currently being used extensively. My organization is huge, and we have an employee count of more than 300,000. I wouldn't be able to provide the exact count, but for my project, 20 people are using this tool.

They usually clarify any queries or issues within three hours. They usually come back to us within three hours, which is as per our SLA, so that's good. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

Previously, we were using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. It is still in use. We haven't completely removed it. We switched because of the licensing and the time taken to create a script.

Neotys has taken some references from LoadRunner to create NeoLoad. So, in terms of functionality, NeoLoad and LoadRunner are quite the same.

The licensing cost of NeoLoad is lesser than LoadRunner. LoadRunner supports a higher number of protocols than NeoLoad. LoadRunner has more protocols for interacting with the application than NeoLoad. So, there are multiple things that we can simulate with LoadRunner, such as a desktop application or traffic for a banking domain.

If I have to create a script in LoadRunner, it usually takes around six hours, but if I do the same thing in Neotys, it usually takes around one and a half hours to complete everything. So, we can provide a deadline for deploying a script. Time is money, so NeoLoad is better in terms of time.

It is straightforward. You don't need much understanding from the installation perspective. You just need to download the .exe and install it. You just need the license, and if you are going for the trial version, you just upload the license. If you are going for a business license, you just have to tie up with them and reach an agreement. That's it. 

It is a one-day thing. One day is enough to complete the installation and the setup.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, we usually have an admin team and a security team to put patches, etc.

Its licensing cost is very less.

If you are dealing only with web HTTP, you can definitely go ahead with this solution because time is money. 

I would rate NeoLoad an eight out of 10.

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.