Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

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.

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.

In my company, we use the product on the cloud by just filling out and taking the subscription and then starting the application in our environment. In general, I am not aware of the technical areas associated with the product.

In Tricentis NeoLoad, there are some good options similar to what Apica offers. If you are planning extraction for eight or ten hours, NeoLoad can extract data from that particular time frame, which is something you can't do in Apica but is present as a good feature in Tricentis NeoLoad. With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window.

The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time. Fixing the scripts takes time due to the problem with the debugging part. The debugging part of the product is an area that requires improvement.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for a year.

My company uses the product on the cloud, so we have no issues with the tool.

At the moment, no one in my company uses the product. I used the tool when I worked with Vodafone's account, but at the moment, our company is not handling it anymore.

I have not contacted the support team of the product since I have not faced any issues with the solution.

The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time. Fixing the scripts takes time due to the problem with the debugging part. The debugging part of the product is an area that requires improvement.

The solution is deployed on the cloud services managed by NeoLoad. Apache JMeter was also deployed on the cloud.

Not only for Tricentis NeoLoad but also any other tool would require some time to be installed.

Anyone can use the product, but it is important to create templates to focus on, especially if someone wants the business transactions to be easily captured in NeoLoad.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad to test risk with API calls and make some small automation with the API calls using small Java scripts to take data from the file.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is SaaS but we use on-premise because we mostly work with the clients in its sensitive data that's required, like, only on-premise usage.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is Software as a Service. We prefer on-premise usage because we mostly work with clients dealing with sensitive data that requires on-premise usage.

The scalability, support protocols, and features of Tricentis NeoLoad made it easy and straightforward for us to complete the same tasks for our customers in the server cloud. We had to verify the certificate and attach the file within a protocol, which was a challenge in the server cloud.

From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest.

There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

The solution is stable. In the past six months, I have only encountered a few issues or bugs when the program crashed. I believe this may have been due to my own configuration settings.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is not very good.

I previously used Cisco SMARTnet but the generators for reports were difficult to configure on the backend so we switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more user-friendly.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed using the manual and did not integrate the solution with anything, such as the CID tool; it was only for small projects.

We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month. The cost is increasing each year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have three people using the solution in our organization.

As long as the organization's requirements are met, I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad.

This solution is mostly used by our customers to monitor the performance of the networks or of the server site.

We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience.

We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution.

We have been working with this solution for 11 years.

We have found that the only stability issues, when using this solution, stem from the hardware in operation as opposed to the solution itself.

This is a fairly scalable solution.

We have found this solution to be very time saving for our customers, who report optimal resource usage since its implementation.

The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support.

We would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use the product for performance and load testing.

It's user-friendly, and everything is handy, with scripting load testing and everything in a single tool. In LoadRunner, we have to use the controller for all those things.

The protocol support area could be improved.

I've been using the solution for almost a week.

From my experience, I would say the stability is good. I've heard about certain limitations, but I haven't experienced any yet.

The solution is scalable for up to 2,000 users, as far as I know.

The solution is easy to set up. I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up.

I implemented it in-house on my own. It is open source. I downloaded it, and I was fine.

NeoLoad is expensive, but to my knowledge, it's better than LoadRunner. 

I don't have much experience with JMeter, so I don't know much about the differences between the products except that JMeter is open-source and NeoLoad is licenced, proprietary software.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate Tricentis NeoLoad as seven. 

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing across our product lines.

My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution.

I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly.

The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag.

We've been using Tricentis NeoLoad for about three years.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution, and my company didn't have any problems with its stability.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable solution. It tests performance, so it has to be scalable.

Technical support for Tricentis NeoLoad is good. My company hasn't had many issues with support. If I were to rate support from one to five, my rating would be four out of five.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a solution that's easy to set up. Deploying it wouldn't take much time, as deployment could be completed within just a few days.

Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000.

I'm using the latest version of Tricentis NeoLoad.

In my company, two people from the performance testing department use Tricentis NeoLoad.

My rating for Tricentis NeoLoad is eight out of ten.

My advice to others looking to start using Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's a good product, and it would be money well spent.

My company is into product development, and it's a user or a customer of Tricentis NeoLoad.

We had three specific use cases we targeted Tricentis NeoLoad for. The first was for services, the second for terminal emulation mainframe applications, and the third was for the web.  We are looking for a more cost effective, efficient (low code) alternative to our current framework. 

Tricentis provides great documentation and collaboration.

The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was the low/no code for the web.

Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the range of codeless scripting such as with terminal emulation apps. 

We did a trial of Tricentis NeoLoad for approximately three months.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution.

We did not have any problems with the scalability of Tricentis NeoLoad but did not fully push the product.  We have approximately six or seven people involved in the POC. This included senior engineers and test developers.

We do not plan to expand the use of this solution at this time because it does not meet all of our needs.  Would consider a second look in the future.

The technical support from Tricentis NeoLoad is very helpful.

We have used Micro Focus LoadRunner. However, it is expensive and there appears to be a declining number of users.  Tricentis NeoLoad is more affordable and would better enable our pipeline but has fewer features.  We are not in a hurry to change but will continue to review products of interest and will continue monitoring Tricentis product roadmap.

The initial setup of Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward. We had the installation instructions and the packages, and it took us approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation in-house.

Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions.

I would encourage others to take a look at this solution. It is a good solution and they maintain the technical expertise needed for success.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad an eight 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. 

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.

We use this tool for load testing on web-browser based APIs.

The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to.

The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive.

We would like to see more focus on support for other types of endpoints. Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols.

We have been using NeoLoad for about six months.

We have experienced no issues in terms of stability.

Scalability has not been a problem for what we use.

There are probably five users, including performance engineers and performance architects. It is only being used in one portfolio area right now, but we plan to expand our usage.

I don't have any experience with technical support.

We are currently using RadView WebLOAD in addition to Neotys NeoLoad. I am in the process of determining whether we should standardize on one tool, and choosing the one that makes the most sense, or continue to use both of them. 

The reason we started working with NeoLoad is that it was a carryover from another site that I was working on. I was looking to see if there was an opportunity.

The subscription pricing of NeoLoad is higher than RadView WebLOAD.

The initial setup is straightforward. Integration with our environment was seamless.

Maintenance is minimal and can be done with one person.

Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based.

My advice to anybody who is implementing NeoLoad is to first understand the technical requirements. Also, it is important to make sure that you have access to the endpoints that you want to load-test on.

Overall, it seems like a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.