We performed a comparison between Cavisson NetStorm and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"The stability is okay."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Cavisson NetStorm is ranked 19th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 60 reviews. Cavisson NetStorm is rated 9.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cavisson NetStorm writes "Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". Cavisson NetStorm is most compared with Apache JMeter, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.