"From my own experience, if you're talking about load testing and performance testing then definitely you should go for CloudTest. Because when we compared CloudTest with Performance Center, cost wise it was a better solution. It is easy to use as well, and you can definitely get an automation engineer or a performance engineer with very little exposure to any programming or scripting language such as JavaScript. I would definitely recommend this solution and would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"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 useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The stability is okay."
"In terms of improvement, I think integration of these tools with the leading EPM tools would be good. It would help to seamlessly integrate to Dynatrace or AppDynamics to understand what the profiling looks like when generating a load."
"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. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"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 SAP area could be improved."
Akamai CloudTest is ranked 17th in Performance Testing Tools with 1 review while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 7 reviews. Akamai CloudTest is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Akamai CloudTest writes "Is easy to use and quick to setup, and does not require much resource capacity for medium instances". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". Akamai CloudTest is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, BlazeMeter and Eggplant Performance, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter and Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.