Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

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.

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.

• Graphical test creation
• Centralized test and results repository
• License management

With the simplicity of the test design interface, little domain knowledge is required for each scripted application, so we are able to generalize all of the performance testers to the point that any tester can update and execute any script instead of having individual domain experts who may be unavailable or busy. This has allowed us to keep more scripts updated easier than ever and keep a constant flow of performance tests in the pipeline, removing some dependence on human interaction.

If there was ever a way to bring the same level of ease to advanced scripting with Javascript to make it as easy as a regular test in NeoLoad, I would love to see it.

Some type of global test scheduler where different tests could be arranged on a calendar to automatically execute would help scheduling and provide visibility into the test environment.

Tighter integration with NeoSense and perhaps TFS integration to open defects for performance issues would also be nice.

I've used it for 12 months.

We've had no issues with deployment.

There have been no stability issues.

Running very large populations on one machine would max out NIC-level capacity far before CPU/memory would provide indication of bottlenecks, but running a distributed test alleviated this issue.

8/10

8/10

We previously used HP LoadRunner, and we switched due to cost, support competence, and the scripting interface.

It's straightforward to install and configure, but complex to convert scripts from a previous product to work in NeoLoad.

We implemented it in-house.

We've gotten 20% increase in tests-per-sprint and 35% decrease in time taken to create a script. We also have cost savings of over one million dollars annually.

Purchase a few extra licenses to allow for flexibility, utilizing the team server as much as possible.

• HP LoadRunner
• JMeter
• Appvance
• Rational Performance Tester

Take the time to see what NeoLoad can do when scripted from scratch and remember that it takes a bit of time to become an expert with the advanced features. Some complex actions may require written code, but there is very little that is actually impossible to test with NeoLoad. The limit is usually a function of experience with the software.

• Flexible license model
• Cloud integration
• Native mobile application testing

I had a requirement to test a mobile application for corporate that is used by users across the globe. I needed to do the test setup quickly to generate load across the region, and to do so with a solution that was cheaper than what we had. A NeoLoad license of four days with load generation from the cloud across regions helped to do the setup in three to four days and perform the testing.

It needs to support SAP GUI-based applications, which forms 60-70% of our portfolio, as well as Windows (client install) and Citrix-based applications.

I've used it for two years.

We had no issues deploying it.

There have been no stability issues.

We tested up to 1,000 users across four regions - North America, EMEA Latin America, and Asia-Pacific. It scaled sufficiently for us to be able to do that cross-regional testing.

It's excellent as the support is always available and helps us to troubleshoot any issues during execution with live support.

We were using HP Performance Center in-house for the previous six years. NeoLoad was tried as there was a need to test mobile applications with load generated from the cloud.

The initial setup is straightforward for both an in-house and a cloud one.

The implementation was done by an in-house team.

The licensing model is very flexible which supports a broad range of budgets, from small projects to enterprise-level setups.

Choose this if your portfolio is predominantly web and mobile. You need to reconsider if your portfolio has many SAP GUI-based applications.

• Easy correlations
• User-friendly GUI
• All components in one place

It helped us to improve the performance of all our applications.

Almost everything about NewLoad looks good, but I would like to have an indication of the variables for error messages appearing in the error tab. This would help us identify the users triggering the errors.

I've been using it for a year.

We've had no deployment issues.

There have been no issues with the stability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

In my experience, customer service is good.

The times that I've contacted technical support have been good experiences.

I worked with HP LoadRunner in my previous projects. I started using NeoLoad when I joined a project that was already utilizing it.

I wasn't involved, but my colleagues have said that the initial setup is straightforward.

An in-house team implemented NeoLoad for the current project.

Compared to HP LoadRunner, NeoLoad is cheaper.

It's a good tool to use if you are not willing to spend lots of money on HP LoadRunner licenses.

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.

It gives us the ability to quickly create a script.

We are able to create load test scripts quickly in a fast paced environment, which in turn helps us identify performance issues.

The support needs to be improved, especially when you are looking for a quick turnaround because of the fast-paced environment we work in.

We've used it for five years.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's rare, but sometimes the application will shut down.

We've had no issues with scalability. You just have to add additional hardware as you increase the number of users.

8/10.

We have a very good partnership. They are always willing to work with us and help resolve any issues or concerns we have. They keep us updated on new releases and features that will be delivered.

7/10.

We previously used HP LoadRunner, but it was not easy to create scripts for a flex application.

The initial setup was very easy.

We implemented it with our in-house team.

As you add more protocols and monitoring it does get expensive.

We looked at HP LoadRunner, SmartBear LoadComplete, and Appvance.

It is very easy to implement and you can start using it fairly quickly.

We use the tool to do POC level activity.

I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time.

The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool’s setup is straightforward. The installation takes a couple of hours to complete.

I would rate the solution an eight-point five out of ten.