We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The stability is okay."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"Version control does not work well."
"I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good."
"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."
"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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and Oracle Application Testing Suite. See our ReadyAPI vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.