"We find the solution stable and scalable."
"We don't have a big team of people that can watch the dials and check that everything is okay. We're doing a lot of the monitoring of our website and our product at the side of the desk. We need a solution that does a lot for us, and that's what Eggplant does."
"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 scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"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 stability is okay."
"I'd like to see the ability to integrate the user experience through device forms like AWS device forms or source labs."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
Eggplant Performance is ranked 9th in Performance Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Eggplant Performance is rated 8.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Eggplant Performance writes "We gave them our requirements and they built all the monitoring and alerts that we need, for both our website and product". 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". Eggplant Performance is most compared with Appium, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus UFT One and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Flood, BlazeMeter and Akamai CloudTest. See our Eggplant Performance vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance 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.
