Software Associate at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
2024-05-10T05:29:48Z
May 10, 2024
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 really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.
Associate Software Engineer at Nts automation labs pvt ltd
Real User
Top 10
2023-12-13T09:19:20Z
Dec 13, 2023
Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts. Tricentis needs to improve in this area, and the solution should run smoothly even if thousands of scripts are imported into it.
Supervisor, Quality Assurance at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
2023-11-01T10:38:17Z
Nov 1, 2023
The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines. The integration with self-service portals and tools must be improved.
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.
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.
Test Specialist at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-04-28T09:48:14Z
Apr 28, 2023
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.
Quality Engineer ( Performance) at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
2023-03-15T15:05:00Z
Mar 15, 2023
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 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.
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.
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.
Head of Systems Engineering & Operations at Ipoque - a Rohde & Schwarz company
Real User
2022-09-08T20:18:22Z
Sep 8, 2022
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Automation Test Engineer and Team Lead at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2021-01-04T09:02:05Z
Jan 4, 2021
Our issues with the solution were related to the license and the support. We had a technical issue related to our software and they weren't able to solve the problem.
Tricentis NeoLoad is a performance testing tool that provides developers and testers with automatic test design, test maintenance, realistic simulation of user behavior, fast root cause analysis, and built-in integrations with the entire SDLC toolchain. With NeoLoad’s plugins, teams can reuse and share test assets and results from functional testing tools, analytics, metrics, and APM tools in order to catch performance issues early. With NeoLoad’s full tech stack support, users can test the...
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.
Tricentis NeoLoad's mobile platform acts as a stand-alone application but needs to be integrated with the main interface.
I really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.
Consistent and robust support needs to be readily available throughout the implementation and initial setup of the solution.
Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts. Tricentis needs to improve in this area, and the solution should run smoothly even if thousands of scripts are imported into it.
The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines. The integration with self-service portals and tools must be improved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly.
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.
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.
The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature.
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.
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.
The protocol support area could be improved.
An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag.
Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the range of codeless scripting such as with terminal emulation apps.
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.
We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times.
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.
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.
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.
Our issues with the solution were related to the license and the support. We had a technical issue related to our software and they weren't able to solve the problem.