Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

My use case for the product is that if this is in the phone, it could start repairing using the product; it's an ERB application. It's a priority to use the two tools Tricentis NeoLoad ratio to the system.

I find that my team is using the features at Tricentis NeoLoad most effectively, as my role is to get that data out of the tool, and they do the analysis. What is better is that we just need this in general, not for the customers, but they have the same rate. We just make a note on every day of record, repair the custom code, and the day would be checked the same with the user information similar to SolarWinds.

For Tricentis NeoLoad, I don't think there is much that needs improvement. Probably the use of the features can be made much more user-friendly, but this one didn't take it. Other than that, I'm not sure what could be improved.

I would probably like to see some new functionalities for Tricentis NeoLoad, such as a converting mechanism, so that if my earlier project could be running, loader, some of the tools, if they have the converter-enabled in the back to the tool, probably I can just use the converter, and they would do the script conversion. For our script, they are open to order at the new system. Other than that, probably they can bring them into that suite together to the new role so they can utilize that as well to do some data population there. For now, we could have some product to create the data, and then we would like to ask in another. Then we did two reviews; it probably says that has been enabled for the tool. That will be once using so that we can have a single source which can run yet, as it's currently running one for a function or a performance. They don't have anything for this data, actually. That is also there, so we can just move. We can just move left to that. That can be used as a platform for both functional support system, but we can do that as very effective. If there are something like service utilization and the ability to place some of the visible analogs, that would make it much easier to have one tool that scales all the services.

I have a little experience with the product, as it's probably only about one thousand. It is just a little bit. Probably the month or so, only I return the project.

For stability, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad around nine.

For scalability, I can rate Tricentis NeoLoad around three, and I feel it is a third party.

I have experience with Tricentis technical support, and it is available, though I'm not always interested in supporting, but they will respond to requests. I can rate it around eight because I think they are much faster than OpenText or Micro Focus, which have some support levels for medium platinum. There's an amount we pay for support, and they will respond directly. It's dependent on what is needed, so Tricentis NeoLoad is the same as getting listed or is common, so I just rate it a little over time.

I don't think that it's a straightforward job to set up the product. When I ordered the current tool, it was already set up as intended. But as the initial launch of Tricentis NeoLoad, I ordered some setup in the first; that is what I think will be the setup.

If I compare Tricentis NeoLoad with Micro Focus, I find Tricentis NeoLoad to be the second best after Micro Focus.

I can recommend Tricentis NeoLoad as an alternative tool when the part of Microsoft, especially if one does not have the budget ready to go for the others.

I don't like to replace the product with another one. It is not easy to integrate the SendGrid product at my current IT environment. Do you have the other project product plus as well? For now, predominantly I'm working on the Duo Duo Duo Tech, so for the functional testing, they're using Kaspersky. For performance, they're using Tricentis NeoLoad integration and the things that we are having a TriNet with, which will also pull the data off it.

For company size, I can recommend it for a grade level; it's not for small, but even though over budget they can leave us, they use it either, even or yet. But if you go for an increased level, companies might prefer to go with the likes of LoadRunner, as they have a much wider support for degree protocol, while Tricentis NeoLoad supports a few programs, not the Excel portals. It's much friendlier, but those guys for their console using probably most of that, and they have the tie-up case to be up to date, so we'll just somehow prefer to use Tricentis NeoLoad.

My overall review rating for Tricentis NeoLoad is nine.

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.

The solution is for continuous performance validation. The important thing is that it's not just for one load test and then forgotten. I try to integrate the performance tests into our pipelines, which helps us easily find or get quick feedback on whether the last change was graceful or not regarding performance. This helps developers who want feedback about functionality, whether a test case passes or fails. Performance can also be understood as test cases, and we often forget to give developers handy feedback about these issues. 

Usually, most of the nonfunctional requirements are forgotten in real projects. Mostly, it's not the job to handle unexpected behavior by NeoLoad. It's more important for me as a performance engineer to identify unexpected behaviors in the application. Sometimes it does not crash, but I can see a degradation of performance. When I see a degradation, it makes sense to inform the software developers in real-time so they can fix it before a crash happens. It is precautionary and helps the application to keep running.

The reporting features are great. It's very easy to analyze the monitoring data and the response times of the application. Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues. Even managers find it easy to understand where the problems are located. Another big feature of Tricentis NeoLoad is the very good APIs they offer.

Since the ownership of NeoLoad has changed to Tricentis, they have done a very poor job with license management. They changed the license policy very abruptly. The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair. The smallest license fee is very high, and there is no starter package at the moment.

I have used the solution for more than ten years.

You can start with a very simple installation process. Step by step, you will find out that NeoLoad is very scalable. If you want a more complex test scenario, then the installation process becomes more complex, however, you can grow with NeoLoad.

The competitors at the moment are Apache JMeter, Gatling, and OctoPerf. Most competitors rely on Apache JMeter, and the others are just a flavor of JMeter. In the end, they are all the same, and they have the main issues I have with JMeter. 

In JMeter, it's very limited to set up performance test scenarios that are a little more complex and more in tune with reality. This is something I miss in JMeter. Other tools try to compensate for this, however, they are not comparable or competitive against NeoLoad.

The overall product rating is eight out of ten.

I have used Tricentis NeoLoad in two of my S/4HANA implementation projects, focusing on Transport Management and Finance & Tax modules. The objective was to assess the performance, stability, and scalability of the applications, ensuring solution capability to handle anticipated loads under both standard and stress conditions.

Encountering performance issues during our upgrades and post-production deployment, we explored available tools in the market and pinpointed Tricentis NeoLoad as a viable solution. Conducting a Proof of Concept (POC), we scrutinized problematic jobs and critical scenarios where processing time was expected to be minimal.
After the successful POC, we seamlessly incorporated Tricentis NeoLoad into our environments. The solution proved instrumental in the early detection of integration and access issues during the POC phase itself. Currently, we are actively leveraging NeoLoad for efficient execution of technical upgrades and comprehensive testing of major releases.

Over the last eighteen months, our focus has primarily revolved around tool selection, procurement, Proof of Concepts (POCs), approval and implementation. Recently, we have successfully implemented the solution and are currently delving into its features. The key features of Neoload are:

1. Utilization of Tosca Functional automation test scripts for executing performance tests, resulting in significant time savings and ease of script reuse with minimal modifications.


2. A shallow learning curve - no prerequisite programming language or performance testing expertise is necessary to operate this tool. We provided training to our technical, functional, and testing teams for seamless utilization.


3. Reduced effort for script maintenance when compared to alternative performance testing tools.

Consistent and robust support needs to be readily available throughout the implementation and initial setup of the solution.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for two years.

It's too early to rate the scalability feature

The solution has good scalability. We tested from 100 to 400 virtual users initially and will increase it shortly 

It's too early to rate the scalability feature 

For our Proof of Concept (POC), we opted for the cloud version, and the setup was quick, taking only two days to complete. The implementation process, however, extended due to the necessity for multiple approvals on our end and addressing some security concerns. While the cloud deployment of the solution proved to be straightforward, on-premise deployment posed more challenges.

Positive

Certainly, I have worked on Loadrunner, JMeter, and Neoload in diverse projects, both SAP and non-SAP related.

In the present circumstances, I sought a tool with high reusability and an easy learning curve. Neoload emerged as the top choice in my evaluation.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate the solution's initial setup seven out of ten and because of our complex environment 

We used the cloud version for our POC, which didn't take much time. We were able to finish the deployment within two days. Our implementation took time because multiple approvals were required from our end, along with some security issues. The solution's cloud deployment was easy, but on-premise deployment was difficult.

It's too early to comment on ROI but we have utilised Tosca scripts for execution

Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner. The solution helps save in other areas like scalability, integrations, usability, and the required manpower.

Yes, I evaluated below tools:

1. Performance Centre cloud

2. J meter

3. Akamai Cloud Test 

4. Inhouse performance solution 

Tricentis NeoLoad proves to be an excellent tool for supporting both SAP and non-SAP applications seamlessly. Its standout feature lies in the impressive reusability of Tosca scripts. If you have Tosca installed for desktop automation, leveraging the existing Tosca scripts becomes a seamless transition to using Tricentis NeoLoad.

In summary, I would give Tricentis NeoLoad a rating of nine out of ten.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a standard tool for testing from an application coverage and reporting aspect. At our company, the tool is primarily used for performance testing to calculate the user-handling capacity of a system and analyze its stability. Tricentis NeoLoad also helps in finding the response rate, for instance, if you access a page will it takes two to three seconds or more. 

Tricentis NeoLoad has a highly intuitive UI. It's a low-code testing tool. The plug-in and out-of-the-box features are very easy to use. Tricentis NeoLoad offers an impressive reporting framework, which allows quick report extraction, which can be used in a Microsoft Word document and other summary reports for sending to our organization's clients. 

Reliable support is provided for Tricentis NeoLoad. The product also easily integrates with numerous other tools, and the vendor is focused on continuously improving Tricentis NeoLoad. 

Tricentis NeoLoad's mobile platform acts as a stand-alone application but needs to be integrated with the main interface. 

I have been working with Tricentis NeoLoad for 15 years. 

It's a highly stable product. 

In our organization, a limited number of people work on Tricentis NeoLoad, so we never faced an obstacle with the scalability in terms of performance testing. Scalability of Tricentis NeoLoad has supported the growing testing needs in our company.

If there is a urgent need to simultaneously perform multiple testing operations across several projects, it can be implemented easily using Tricentis NeoLoad. Operational support is also available at a quick pace for operating simultaneous heavy performance tests. 

The product's end-users range from 500 to 1000. Our company deployed the solution across multiple geographies. 

As part of the licensing, our company receives standard tech support, and the support team has been highly responsive to our queries. I have some personal connections, and the information on Tricentis NeoLoad is abundant across the internet, which helped me further in solving issues or doubts. I would rate the technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The solution offers an easy setup process. Tricentis NeoLoad has intuitive installers to facilitate a seamless deployment process. Our organization works with both the on-prem and SaaS models of Tricentis NeoLoad as per the client's needs. 

As part of the deployment process in our company, at first, we typically provision some VMs, and then we get the installers and license codes upon purchase. Following the aforementioned step, the .exe controller is installed, and in the help section of the product's portal, the license needs to be applied. The deployment process of the solution takes around one or two days. 

The product doesn't require many resources for deployment and can be easily maintained. The SaaS version is maintained by the vendor, while the on-prem version allows the user to archive the reports and results. 

At our company, we've used OpenText LoadRunner for some clients, which seemed costly in terms of the ROI, but with Tricentis NeoLoad, the cost roughly became one-fifth while getting the same features. Quite some effort was required when our company migrated to Tricentis NeoLoad. In less than three quarters, the ROI could be realized with the tool. 

The vendor offers flexible licensing options. Tricentis NeoLoad has a SaaS platform. The solution can probably be available between 30 and 50 thousand per year, while open-source tools cost way less. 

When compared to OpenText LoadRunner, Tricentis NeoLoad doesn't support the mainframe extensively. The price of Tricentis NeoLoad may seem a bit high when compared to web-based open-source tools. 

Tricentis NeoLoad offers excellent support for SAP-based applications, while open-source competitor tools like JMeter are unable to provide the same support. One competitor tool called OpenText LoadRunner supports SAP applications but not in a cost-effective way, like Tricentis NeoLoad. 

The real-time analysis feature of Tricentis NeoLoad is a valuable feature and we haven't faced any issues in the testing process. The scripting and auto-correlation features of Tricentis NeoLoad have helped our organization improve testing efficiency.

The solution's technical feature stack is more than enough for the present IT industry. I would recommend Tricentis NeoLoad to others. At our company, we compare Tricentis NeoLoad with other tools to give our clients an overview and weigh the pros and cons of each. Our company also gives a score to each tool, and Tricentis NeoLoad tops the chart. 

One industry trend is mobile user experience, for which Tricentis NeoLoad has integrated the latest technologies and partnered with a third-party mobile platform provider. Another noticeable industry trend is reliability testing, which is different from performance testing and for which there are other tools in the market. Overall, I would rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individual loads and data directly within NeoLoad without needing third-party tools.

The tool has improved our application performance testing process by providing a flexible analysis tool. We can easily analyze various aspects of our application, such as long-term transactions and response times. The analysis feature allows us to drill down into specific files and identify any issues directly within the tool, such as high CPU or memory utilization.

The product is easy to use and has a user-friendly interface. A new user's learning curve is around 30-45 days. It is easy to integrate with other solutions. The tool integrates seamlessly with our CI/CD pipeline, including tools like Jenkins, allowing us to execute tests through non-GUI mode.

I have been working with the product for two years.

The product is scalable. We have licenses for 10,000 users and connections for 9,500 users. Currently, we use it to test REST services and UI applications. However, we plan to expand its usage to include additional applications and services. 

The tool's technical support responds quickly. However, they are a bit slow in responding to mails. 

Neutral

Tricentis NeoLoad is easy to implement. Implementation typically takes less than ten days, provided we have all the necessary licenses, APM tools, and IP addresses.

The tool's pricing is somewhat higher than licensed tools like LoadRunner. The approximate cost is around $25,000. There are no additional charges for maintenance or support. Everything is included in the package we have. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. Based on factors like budget constraints and specific performance testing needs, I would recommend Tricentis NeoLoad to others. However, if budget is a concern and similar activities can be achieved with tools like JMeter, that could also be a viable option.

There was a requirement from the project itself. So when I was onboarded to the project, I learned it myself and then continued on with NeoLoad.

It is for an Agile project. 

In the application, if it's a web application, I could see so many requests will be recorded. It will be a little clumsy with many request correlations and many things that need to be handled in JMeter since it consists of sub-requests and internal requests. So many things will be recorded, actually. 

But when it comes to NeoLoad, the maintenance will be easy. Then, whatever is required, those requests will be recorded. For example, in the same flow, JMeter, I could see maybe 35 to 40 requests. In NeoLoad, I could see only 20, but it won't miss any requests. It will bundle them as a single request. And then, it's pretty much straightforward for a performance tester, basically, to go through, and it is time-saving while using NeoLoad. The interface is easy.

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.

I have been using it for the past eight months somehow.

It is pretty scalable. Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad. 

And if they're still working on protocols like web and web services, with a minimum amount of knowledge, they can be able to operate within less time. So it's pretty much flexible.

I worked on LoadRunner earlier in my experience. It's like I worked on LoadRunner for more than six years. 

However, LoadRunner is ultimately the leading tool in the market. Because as long as the pricing matters, it has the cloud and on-prem [options]. Separate components will be having a spectacular view, analyzing the results and everything. Individual components will have their own features. But NeoLoad, as well, cannot be that hard. It will be good as well after LoadRunner.

The customer service and support are good. We obviously write a ticket, and within a day or so, they will get back to us from Tricentis. They support us. Support-wise, it's similar to LoadRunner since they license the tool. 

So, obviously, we will have support if there are any critical blockers on the load generator, execution issues, or other certain things. They definitely give the support.

We basically directly contact through emails.

We work with JMeter and BlazeMeter, depending on the project requirements. 

NeoLoad is generally better than JMeter. 

It is easy to use. There's a particular process where we need to enter a license key to run even with a minimum amount of users. But LoadRunner has a 50 free license. In NeoLoad, as far as I know, we definitely need a license key to execute tests beyond a single user. So, the licensing setup is there.

There are certain steps that need to be followed to complete scripts and executions. But I feel it couldn't be that difficult to learn. It can be learned very quickly.

For the client-side... pricing obviously comes into the picture in our company. Maybe when compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable. They used LoadRunner earlier, and they switched to NeoLoad. 

So I've used JMeter and NeoLoad, but NeoLoad is pretty much good, better than JMeter. JMeter is a free, open-source tool.

I would recommend using this solution. If the person or if the company or someone cannot afford it... for example, if LoadRunner is a thousand dollars and this one [NeoLoad] is seven hundred dollars, something like that... if the client is genuinely looking at pricing and they don't have a high budget, there are budget issues in the project... In that case, if they cannot afford LoadRunner, NeoLoad is definitely preferable as another best-licensed tool, better than JMeter. JMeter is obviously open-source, but NeoLoad is better.

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

I've primarily used it on-premise, not SaaS-based. However, the most concurrent virtual users I've handled with NeoLoad were around 8,000 users.

NeoLoad, especially, I like the comparison report that it provides. That's a really awesome thing. Apart from that, we have many options to control how you ramp up, how you ramp down, and what kind of things. The customization that we have. So those kinds of things really ease how testers complete the job at the earliest.

The graphs are very good because, from a performance test perspective, I always look at any graphs to compare how the users have been ramped and where, actually, the response times have decreased. Those kinds of graphs are all really very good with NeoLoad.

NeoLoad is more of a client-based tool. We generally use integrated APM tools, like New Relic and Dynatrace, but we don't integrate Dynatrace with NeoLoad.

We have integrated it with Jenkins. Recently, we have done for GitHub actions as well, which is really very good. Continuous integration with NeoLoad. The one feature that I haven't tried is on the cloud. NeoLoad cloud. Mainly because the funding was not there. We see a huge price on the virtual user limit and other things. So that's the reason we have stopped NeoLoad, and we jumped onto StressStimulus because it's cost-efficient, and we are almost getting the same features what NeoLoad offered. 

But still, my all-time favorite is NeoLoad because of the way the UI integration works. We are doing a lot of coding factors with StressStimulus if we want to execute anything. But with NeoLoad, we didn't have that. It was very easy for the testers. Anyone can pick it up at any point in time. That's how the NeoLoad tool was.

The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use.

What I like most is the comparison report that I get. And, thirdly about the TTSB, all those information that I get while it's running and the segregation, basically. So those are the major features. 

The fourth one is the customization that I can make while designing your execution. These are the four major features that I really love with NeoLoad.

From the UI perspective, it's really great. The way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface is very well done. It makes it easier for testers to learn or adapt to the tools. So, NeoLoad is really very good. 

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. But earlier, the support was actually very wonderful. I started using NeoLoad right from 2011.

So, there is room for improvement in customer service and support. It requires a lot of justification and a lot of emails that you need to send back and forth. But earlier, when I was working with Siemens, the integration of the NeoLoad team and Siemens team was very good, and the support was excellent. As soon as you raised a ticket, we had very good support, but that changed after Tricentis.

I've been working with NeoLoad for ten years.

The support value is only when you are taking a very high price. For instance, if we want better support, they would mainly go for SaaS-based and NeoLoad Cloud and things, and they value that.

I also use StresStimulus. We use multiple licensed tools here at our company, so it depends on the product. For example, in StresStimulus, where we don't have Oracle forms support, we use NeoLoad. 

However, in my previous companies, my experience with NeoLoad was great because we had a tie-up with the Tricentis team.

For me, the second is OpenText LoadRunner. To some extent, it’s about the customers. And JMeter is only used as a last resort unless there's no funding from the customer and they specifically request it.

I also used LoadRunner. The user interface was awesome with NeoLoad.  Because the very first tool that I used was LoadRunner. At LoadRunner, we had to write coding, especially in sync.  However, the features that LoadRunner provided were different. When I started using NeoLoad, there was a difference. 

But, gradually, I felt that the user interface of NeoLoad was awesome and that it could not be compared with any other tool, including LoadRunner.

The features, when you look at them, are almost similar to those of LoadRunner and NeoLoad.

The pricing policy requires substantial improvement. 

The current organization doesn't fund so much, so they're looking out for lesser pricing and things as such. 

So, that's why we start evaluating different tools, more open source, to see where we can fit and how that can be. However, with any of the healthcare-based products that we test, we always use licensed tools, and currently, we use NeoLoad only. Only when there is any Oracle Forms application do we use NeoLoad. Until then, we won't be going ahead with NeoLoad.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. I would recommend using it. 

But when it comes to pricing, I feel StresStimulus is better. It gives the same features as NeoLoad. There might be some ups and downs. But the premium support with StresStimulus will be there. 

NeoLoad is the number one product for me. But StresStimulus is also picking up. We can schedule a call with StresStimulus's support. If we raise a ticket today, we can schedule the call for the same day and get the issue rectified. There is no lag. 

But with NeoLoad, the support is lacking a lot. 

We use the solution for load and performance testing activities for web-based applications, Siebel CRM, and Oracle E-Business Suite.

The product has enhanced features that let us cut down the script development and maintenance time. We can quickly correlate the values and create the scripts. When there are changes to our application, the maintenance becomes easier. The dashboards are readily available after the executions. The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis.

The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines. The integration with self-service portals and tools must be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The tool is stable. The initial versions had issues. With every new version, the product is improving and becoming more stable and robust. I rate the stability a seven to eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven to seven and a half out of ten. More than 25 people are using the product in our organization.

We have been in contact with the support team. Since Neotys became Tricentis, the turnaround time for support queries has increased considerably. It takes longer to get a response, and it impacts delivery. I would have rated Neotys’ support an eight or eight and a half out of ten. However, in the current state, I rate support a six or six and a half out of ten.

Neutral

We were using tools like LoadRunner along with NeoLoad. However, NeoLoad provided a better balance between the cost and benefits.

The initial setup was quite easy. The deployment can be done quickly for a single set of servers or workstations. However, the time taken depends on how extensive the infrastructure is.

The tool is not cheap. However, the cost is a bit lower than other tools like LoadRunner.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, my recommendation would depend on other parameters like the extent of testing and investment that they may want to do. There is some investment associated with it. It may not be justified if they are just doing load testing as one of the activities. Considering the ease of use, technical setup, and level of support provided, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for Tricentis NeoLoad is performance testing and engineering, where we test or create scripts for different web-based applications on Tricentis NeoLoad. We also do multi-user testing on the tool and server monitoring to see how the servers behave. We also hook our CI/CD pipeline with Azure and Tricentis NeoLoad to trigger the test, then collect test statistics.

Tricentis NeoLoad has improved the organization I'm in as a performance testing tool that's easy to implement. My team found that Tricentis NeoLoad had no issues regarding the learning curve, including learning and using its features, versus LoadRunner, which had a long learning curve.

The result collation feature of Tricentis NeoLoad, including pulling the load generators or different remote machines from the cloud and using those with the test machines, was also fascinating and helpful to my organization.

What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful.

I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports.

The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team.

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.

I started using Tricentis NeoLoad in 2017, so I have almost five years of experience with it.

Tricentis NeoLoad has a very good performance. Stability-wise, my team didn't experience any issues with it. Even the older versions of Tricentis NeoLoad didn't crash, so the tool is more than ninety percent stable.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable tool. You just need to purchase an additional license to scale, add more machines, and expand a particular deployment. Scaling Tricentis NeoLoad is easy.

My rating for the Tricentis NeoLoad technical support is four out of five because I never faced any issues with support. Issue resolution was on time. The Tricentis support staff had the expertise on Tricentis NeoLoad, and my team didn't have problems during instances when an escalation was needed to resolve the issue.

We used a lot of tools before using Tricentis NeoLoad such as LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Test Manager, and Silk Performer, but those tools weren't as innovative as Tricentis NeoLoad.

The initial setup for Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward, and I didn't see any issues in that area.

The Tricentis team was involved in implementing Tricentis NeoLoad, so it wasn't in-house.

I've seen twenty percent ROI from Tricentis NeoLoad, at least the last time I looked at the report.

I don't have information on the licensing cost of Tricentis NeoLoad because my manager handles that. From a testing perspective and based on company requirements, the current license is for one thousand users.

We evaluated Compuware and other tools, but Tricentis NeoLoad had a better UI.

Right now, six people use Tricentis NeoLoad within the company.

Two people take care of the deployment of Tricentis NeoLoad, and two to three people handle its maintenance.

There's a plan to increase usage for Tricentis NeoLoad, mainly because my company is trying to explore more tool features. If it's easier to integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with third-party monitoring tools, then usage could be increased.

My advice to others planning to implement Tricentis NeoLoad is to first look into the applications to be tested because there's a limitation in the tool right now, particularly the feasibility of testing Web and Citrix Desk applications. There's also no support for other applications. If you need testing for different protocols, for example, Oracle or JDBC database applications, you'll need to use a different tool because Tricentis NeoLoad currently doesn't have compatibility. It's better first to find out what applications you want to test, your testing goal, and if that would be compatible with Tricentis NeoLoad.

I'm rating Tricentis NeoLoad as seven out of ten.