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.

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 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.

• 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.

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 are primarily testing APIs but also testing the UI in some cases. In my last job, I also developed a plugin to enable NeoLoad to measure the end-user experience. If you have a modern web application, you usually only exchange JSON files between the client and the server. On the client side, you will render the JSON information to an HTML side or a dynamic DOM structure.

NeoLoad is used for testing the response time, which is not the same as the time it takes for the user to see the page. When the JSON document arrives on the client side, the client has to render the information. If you are considering the user experience from the end user's perspective, you are not interested in how long it takes to get the JSON. You want to know how long it will take to get the JSON and see the information on the page.

NeoLoad can't do this because it does not render the data from the server. The browser engine uses considerable RAM, so we cannot simulate many users simultaneously. We enabled NeoLoad to control a typical test. For example, a QF Test like Robot Framework tests the web UI. It starts and renders the application to measure how long it takes to see some special information on the page. 

These response times are fed into NeoLoad through a data exchange API, enabling us to visualize the actual user experience inside NeoLoad. That's NeoLoad's primary advantage. It has incredible APIs to implement special additional features or plugins you need for special applications.

NeoLoad helped us to transition from load testing to continuous performance measurement. It is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline. We implemented performance testing like you would have unit or functional tests. Every day, we get information if something happens in our application that affects the performance in a negative way.

NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application. 

Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in.

I began using NeoLoad when Neotys still owned the product. In total, I have about 13 years of experience working with the solution. 

Setting up NeoLoad is straightforward.

We deployed NeoLoad in-house. I already had experience with the solution from my previous job, so we didn't need Tricentis to send a consultant to help us. However, it's helpful to take advantage of their consultants if you need them. Tricentis has a network of freelancers, so it's easy to find a consultant near you, and you can usually find somebody who speaks your mother tongue.

The support is very good. They have excellent community support.

The pricing is pretty good.

The stability is okay. 

There are still some glitches that they need to improve. We have given support feedback as well when we have some issues. They're very responsive and they do work to fix and improve issues. 

LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all.

I've used the solution for five years.

We do occasionally deal with glitches. The previous versions are very stable. The newer versions have some glitches and sometimes it hangs, however, for the most part, it's okay.

There are issues around some protocol settings, like when we use encryption. When a person uses the banking application, the user and password are encrypted. We have issues with the encryption protocol. Lately, some settings may have changed and it seems to be working.

While it's a good solution, I cannot speak to the scalability.

The community support is good. Whenever we have an issue, they provide support to resolve it. If we need information about features, they help. Support is very good.

We use the solution as projects demand. We are a consulting company. Whatever the client has already purchased, we will use that. We work with all kinds of tools.

I don't have any details related to ROI.

I'm not exactly sure what the pricing is as it differs from client to client.

That said, LoadRunner is expensive and NeoLoad is less expensive whereas JMeter is free.

I'm familiar, for example, with LoadRunner. When you compare this with Load Runner, Load Runner is the best tool as it, number one, is very user-friendly when compared with the NeoLoad. It also supports the protocols. It is very mature, so people are very comfortable with it. The monitoring is good, and it has a lot of good features.

NeoLoad will not support all the protocols and it's not as user-friendly as LoadRunner. I use LoadRunner more than NeoLoad, and therefore am more comfortable with it.

I also am familiar with JMeter, which is an open-source option and therefore a free tool. In comparison, NeoLoad is a big tool and JMeter is quite small. With NeoLoad, you can get all kinds of reports, flexible reports and you can customize the reports as well. We can drill down on the reports if we want. That's not possible in JMeter.

NeoLoad is a good tool for banking or telecom applications. When compared with the LoadRunner, NeoLoad will support almost all necessary features including reporting. It is a good tool.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.

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.