Share your experience using IxLoad VE

My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some solution on the basis of Tricentis NeoLoad. We tested both virtual infrastructure and cloud infrastructure. I am an end user of the solution, a customer of Tricentis.

The best features of this tool, which I value the most in Tricentis NeoLoad, are the convenient predefined set of metrics for different platforms, and it was most easy to set up and start running. They have agents which could be installed on the virtual machines or on the cloud, and it was pretty simple and easy to start using that.

I'm not ready to share what areas of Tricentis NeoLoad have room for improvement now.

The price could be more friendly, and it was impossible to continue using the same version of Tricentis NeoLoad, as we were forced to move to the next version. Sometimes there were compatibility problems, and that was a major problem with backward compatibility issues.

I have worked with it for approximately two years.

In terms of stability, I would rate it as intermediate; it's not 100%, but we experienced some problems with it as it needed to sometimes be restarted during the interaction with our infrastructure.

We don't have such a big solution, but the scalability from a fast point of view was pretty good. For us, it was satisfactory; we were satisfied with it, and I think it's okay.

I would rate technical support as satisfactory; I contacted the support, and it was easy to contact, plus they proposed additional sessions or workshops and all kinds of things, and they were pretty responsive.

From my experience, I would rate technical support as one to one, at least at that time when I used it, which was when they were only bought by Tricentis, two or three years ago.

Negative

Before Tricentis NeoLoad, we used JMeter, and I think we continued to use it; we didn't completely move from JMeter as it was just an additional installation.

The deployment was done in-house by my organization, and we did not use a third party integrator, reseller, or consultant to help us.

I think Tricentis NeoLoad was maybe 75% of the best solution. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a 10 out of 10.

My experience with Katalon Studio is that we used Katalon for one of our projects, and then I started leveraging Katalon by integrating it with AI tools, AP tools, and aptly tools. Aptly tool is an add-on which we can integrate with the existing Katalon. So we didn't have any licensed tool as such, but I integrated a tool to one of our case studies for our clients and made use of it. Predominantly, I used Katalon without using a license just to show our clients that we can use Katalon full-fledged for one of our automation scripts, which already existed for different tools. That is how I started with Katalon.

Beyond Katalon, I've also worked with other tools, including TestIM, which we used for automating mobile applications and APIs.

For payments, I worked predominantly in the ed-tech domain, enabling a student to select and enroll in courses. This required payment processing where we automated a dummy payment gateway using REST API. The entire enrollment process was seamless, ensuring smooth transitions from selecting courses to payment deductions.

For non-functional testing, I focus on performance and security. For performance and security tests, I used REST API, SoapUI, and JMeter. These tools help us conduct thorough testing across these dimensions.

I find ReadyAPI helpful especially in overcoming security issues, as we experienced slowness in the application after merging our JAR files. For instance, if a person wants to access a university database and encounters a timeout error, we learned through ReadyAPI that the issue was due to HTML protocol limits with the payload. We fine-tuned this process to display the expected data effectively.

I consider ReadyAPI a cost-effective solution because it covers three verticals without needing to purchase separate tools for security, performance, or functional testing. ReadyAPI is a versatile tool for creating multiple testing frameworks and validating various parameters seamlessly.

REST API is the tool I use to test all three types of articles, meaning I validate the APIs I send to my peers or clients for functional testing, and I also perform security testing to ensure the URL and data passed through multiple components adhere to policies and user privileges. This is done through functional security testing using the REST API tool, and for performance, I ensure that applications can be accessed simultaneously by multiple users without hindrance or slowness through thorough performance testing.

One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI. We created an in-house dashboard to display automation runs across projects, which required manual updating of event listeners for new project imports. This process could be improved for easier updates upon script changes.

My experience with SmartBear support was good and I was quite satisfied with their responsiveness and efficiency in addressing our needs.

I contacted SmartBear for support several years ago as a QA contact for my US client. SmartBear had an ALM tool that helped manage project documentation, including Jira-related specifications, test plans, and test cases. We reached out to integrate our test cases into the ALM.

Positive

There are other tools that may excel in specific aspects compared to ReadyAPI, but REST API serves our purpose well. Tools such as Postman help with API automation, but they aren't as efficient for comprehensive testing. SoapUI, JMeter, and LoadRunner are primarily focused on performance testing, but ReadyAPI remains the most cost-effective option, as it supports all types of testing without the need for multiple licenses.

I'm using Katalon Studio and TestIM. We need a license to use Katalon Studio, and the license enables multiple users on the same tool, allowing us to leverage full-fledged automation. There are key features that will be disabled if we're not using a licensed Katalon. The one I used did not require a license, but I automated one of the test cases without using the license through the Aptly tool available in the market. We did that for basic and critical features.

Katalon is the one I used full-fledged without needing a license as such, and it served our purpose. However, if there are multiple subordinates who want to use Katalon Studio and access the same automation script, then they probably need the license. In my case, I did not require a license but having one would allow leveraging additional features. For example, it can automatically create Jira bug reports when exceptions arise, and using licensed tools can help self-heal scripts if errors occur.

I have worked on multiple verticals, including functional testing, which doesn't require any automation. For functional testing, we did manual testing, including database validation using tools such as SQL Developer. We validated and wrote test cases, then executed them manually for our web-based, mobile-based, and desktop-based applications. In automation testing, there are two types: functional automation and non-functional automation.

To address the security issue found using REST API, we can tweak it by injecting queries that attempt to access an inbox directly. This showcases a critical issue that may arise when using Single Sign-On, allowing access to multiple applications using a single credential, as was the case with accessing both Confluence and Jira using an Atlassian account.

I primarily used CoPilot with ReadyAPI to accelerate groovy script creation, particularly when I needed to create multiple users with unique credentials. By utilizing CoPilot, I generated a script that facilitated the rapid implementation of different usernames and passwords, streamlining our productivity.

REST API is a smart tool compared to others I've used. While LoadRunner excels specifically in performance testing, ReadyAPI covers various reporting and validations seamlessly. Changes made in the tool seamlessly update to repositories without lagging or exceptions.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate ReadyAPI a 7.