Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Eggplant Performance vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 5, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Eggplant Performance
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Eggplant Performance is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 16.1%, up from 14.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shyam_Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers unique object identification, ideal for UI layer regression automation but limited scalability
Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used. Secondly, we have a very limited resource pool that uses this tool in India. So, finding resources familiar with Eggplant in India is challenging due to lack of affiliation programs and so on.
Dirk O. Schweier - PeerSpot reviewer
Key reports enable insightful analysis and useful for continuous performance validation
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is not a conventional test automation tool. It uses optical character recognition (OCR) to identify objects. It makes it the best in the class."
"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."
"We find the solution stable and scalable."
"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."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"The reporting features are great."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
 

Cons

"Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used."
"I'd like to see the ability to integrate the user experience through device forms like AWS device forms or source labs."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The product is expensive."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive in India."
"Eggplant came out as the most competitive in terms of commercials (terms and conditions) which was positive. When we did the initial negotiations, Eggplant started at a price but they were open to negotiations and we did negotiate a discount. That was really important to us because it showed a level of commitment to us."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"From a licensing cost perspective, I rate the product an eight out of ten since it is a cheap solution that looks costly for certain areas."
"The tool is not cheap."
"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."
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"The solution is quite expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
861,390 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Eggplant Performance?
It is not a conventional test automation tool. It uses optical character recognition (OCR) to identify objects. It makes it the best in the class.
What needs improvement with Eggplant Performance?
Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used. Secondly, we have a very limited resource pool that uses this tool in India. So, finding resources f...
Do you recommend Tricentis NeoLoad?
I highly recommend Tricentis NeoLoad for companies that are in need of a versatile load and performance testing tool. This relatively inexpensive solution is recognized by organizations like Oxford...
What is your primary use case for Neotys NeoLoad?
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, w...
What do you like most about Tricentis NeoLoad?
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 individu...
 

Also Known As

TestPlant eggPlant Performance
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Eggplant Performance vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,390 professionals have used our research since 2012.