We compared Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad both excel in load testing capabilities and robust reporting features. Apache JMeter offers more extensive customization options and protocol support, while Tricentis NeoLoad is praised for its ease of use and superior customer service. Users suggest that Apache JMeter could improve its user interface and documentation, while Tricentis NeoLoad users desire better integration options and software stability.
Features: The valuable features of Apache JMeter include its versatility in load testing, robust reports and graphs for analysis, excellent support for various protocols, a user-friendly interface, and extensive customization options. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad offers ease of use, intuitive interface, excellent support for load testing and performance monitoring, advanced reporting capabilities, seamless integration with other tools, and efficient handling of complex and large-scale tests.
Pricing and ROI: According to user feedback, the setup cost for Apache JMeter is not mentioned, indicating a smooth and hassle-free process. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad also has a straightforward setup and the pricing is considered reasonable. Both products have easy-to-understand licensing processes., Apache JMeter demonstrated positive outcomes for return on investment, including improved testing processes and cost savings. Tricentis NeoLoad also provided a favorable return on investment, adding value to businesses.
Room for Improvement: In terms of room for improvement, Apache JMeter could benefit from enhancements in its user interface and documentation, particularly for beginners. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad could use improvements in various areas including documentation, user interface design, integration options, and software stability.
Deployment and customer support: Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad have different user reviews regarding the duration required for establishing a new tech solution. Apache JMeter users mentioned three months for deployment and a week for setup, while Tricentis NeoLoad users mentioned three months for deployment and one week for setup or one week for both deployment and setup., Apache JMeter's customer service is praised for being helpful, reliable, and responsive. Customers appreciate their knowledge and prompt responses. Tricentis NeoLoad's customer service is commended for its promptness, professionalism, and efficient query resolution. Users are satisfied with the level of assistance received.
The summary above is based on 66 interviews we conducted recently with Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"We find the load testing feature valuable."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"The solution is scalable."
"User-friendly and open source."
"I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The recording and playback functionality is helpful."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The stability is okay."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"Given that Apache JMeter is a free and open-source tool, documentation improvement may not be a major concern, as it is mostly contributed on a voluntary basis. The essential information is already available. However, in terms of the interface, there are occasional bugs, and the tool may not address them as quickly as some users would like. Fixing defects and bugs might take a considerable amount of time, with users sometimes having to wait for several months or even a year for the next release to address specific issues."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"There are certain things like we can't merge custom metrics into the JMeter reports. We're limited to JMeter metrics, and other server metrics can't be integrated with JMeter dashboard. This forces us to rely on another tool."
"Report generation needs to be improved. It is quite difficult to get to."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"The solution needs to improve reporting. Currently, there is not enough automation involved with the feature. For example, there should be an automatic way of saving reports."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"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 is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 57 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our Apache JMeter vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
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.
