Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

Our primary use case for Tricentis NeoLoad is performance testing and engineering, where we test or create scripts for different web-based applications on Tricentis NeoLoad. We also do multi-user testing on the tool and server monitoring to see how the servers behave. We also hook our CI/CD pipeline with Azure and Tricentis NeoLoad to trigger the test, then collect test statistics.

Tricentis NeoLoad has improved the organization I'm in as a performance testing tool that's easy to implement. My team found that Tricentis NeoLoad had no issues regarding the learning curve, including learning and using its features, versus LoadRunner, which had a long learning curve.

The result collation feature of Tricentis NeoLoad, including pulling the load generators or different remote machines from the cloud and using those with the test machines, was also fascinating and helpful to my organization.

What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful.

I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports.

The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier.

In its next release, I'd like to see more compatibility with new protocols or applications from Tricentis NeoLoad.

I started using Tricentis NeoLoad in 2017, so I have almost five years of experience with it.

Tricentis NeoLoad has a very good performance. Stability-wise, my team didn't experience any issues with it. Even the older versions of Tricentis NeoLoad didn't crash, so the tool is more than ninety percent stable.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable tool. You just need to purchase an additional license to scale, add more machines, and expand a particular deployment. Scaling Tricentis NeoLoad is easy.

My rating for the Tricentis NeoLoad technical support is four out of five because I never faced any issues with support. Issue resolution was on time. The Tricentis support staff had the expertise on Tricentis NeoLoad, and my team didn't have problems during instances when an escalation was needed to resolve the issue.

We used a lot of tools before using Tricentis NeoLoad such as LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Test Manager, and Silk Performer, but those tools weren't as innovative as Tricentis NeoLoad.

The initial setup for Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward, and I didn't see any issues in that area.

The Tricentis team was involved in implementing Tricentis NeoLoad, so it wasn't in-house.

I've seen twenty percent ROI from Tricentis NeoLoad, at least the last time I looked at the report.

I don't have information on the licensing cost of Tricentis NeoLoad because my manager handles that. From a testing perspective and based on company requirements, the current license is for one thousand users.

We evaluated Compuware and other tools, but Tricentis NeoLoad had a better UI.

Right now, six people use Tricentis NeoLoad within the company.

Two people take care of the deployment of Tricentis NeoLoad, and two to three people handle its maintenance.

There's a plan to increase usage for Tricentis NeoLoad, mainly because my company is trying to explore more tool features. If it's easier to integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with third-party monitoring tools, then usage could be increased.

My advice to others planning to implement Tricentis NeoLoad is to first look into the applications to be tested because there's a limitation in the tool right now, particularly the feasibility of testing Web and Citrix Desk applications. There's also no support for other applications. If you need testing for different protocols, for example, Oracle or JDBC database applications, you'll need to use a different tool because Tricentis NeoLoad currently doesn't have compatibility. It's better first to find out what applications you want to test, your testing goal, and if that would be compatible with Tricentis NeoLoad.

I'm rating Tricentis NeoLoad as 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am a senior performance engineer providing end-to-end performance testing. This involves gathering all non-functional requirements, creating a test plan, and creating a test strategy document. From there, we would start our benchmark and baseline testing based on the tool and protocol of the specific client in order to gather the scripting and the load testing. NeoLoad helps us identify bottlenecks and memory leaks which will help us increase the hardware capacity for the client and/or look at things on the software end including scalability, reliability, testing, and failure testing.

It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing.

Each of the main components - design, runtime, and results - are unique in their own way.

The design offers four components: user part (which is where we would be creating and enhancing scripts while implementing things like pacing, think time, and error handling concepts), servers (which is where we have the service testing of API testing), population (which is where we can plug scripts, create multiple populations, and perform bandwidth testing), and monitors (which is a server-side where we can add credentials to a database or server via SSH details).

Runtime allows us to create scenarios, populations, low variation policies, load generators, and custom load profiles. Other functions include graphs, templates, check alerts, set alerts, check response time, etc.

The results tab provides us with the NeoLoad report which we can segregate.

We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols.

Testing can also be a little tricky at times.

I have been using this tool for almost nine years.

This tool is easy to use. It requires little code implementation thanks to many predefined areas. I have not experienced any stability issues over the past nine years I have been using it.

I would rate the stability as five out of five. Right now we have about 500 users but in the past, we have had roughly 200k. They range from senior performance engineers to performance architects to performance test engineers.

Customer service is fantastic. I have been working with one customer service rep for the past nine years. 

Initial installation, registration, and setup were all straightforward and very easy, especially in comparison to other tools.

We were able to implement the tool with our in-house team.

We were able to set up per user basis licensing.

Newer additions such as NeoLoad SAP, Citrix, NeoLoad Web, etc. are excellent extensions with a broad range of new functions.

Organizations should be aware that there are limited videos available on the internet regarding NeoLoad so they should ensure that they receive proper training from the reseller/integrator upon purchase. 

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.