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

IBM Engineering Test Management vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Engineering Test Management improves efficiency, reduces defects, integrates well with IBM software, enhancing workflow and providing cost savings.
Sentiment score
7.0
Tricentis NeoLoad delivers significant ROI by enhancing testing efficiency, saving costs, and quickly addressing performance issues.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Engineering Test Management's customer support is praised for responsiveness and effectiveness, with improvements in response times and satisfactory experiences.
Sentiment score
7.6
Tricentis NeoLoad offers responsive, expert support, praised for flexibility, though some experience occasional delays; overall satisfaction remains high.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM Engineering Test Management scales smoothly for large organizations with thousands of users and test cases, including automated ones.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad efficiently scales for varying user volumes, supporting large applications with high user satisfaction and deployment flexibility.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
IBM Engineering Test Management is reliable and stable, with good performance but occasionally impacted by server configuration and database space issues.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis NeoLoad is generally stable, though large-scale performance tests and environment settings may cause minor stability issues.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM Engineering Test Management requires a user-friendly interface, enhanced usability, data handling, hierarchical structuring, and seamless integration with automated pipelines.
NeoLoad needs protocol support, UI improvements, affordable pricing, better documentation, and refined reporting for large projects.
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.
 

Setup Cost

<p>IBM Engineering Test Management provides robust features and customization with flexible pricing, ideal for large enterprises needing comprehensive test management.</p>
Tricentis NeoLoad is seen as cost-effective and flexible, adaptable to business needs, but costs can rise with expanded use.
 

Valuable Features

IBM Engineering Test Management is praised for fast, reliable customizable workflows, and robust integrations, particularly in testing and tracking functionality.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers easy script creation, integration, and comprehensive analysis for effective performance testing across various environments.
Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (15th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 17.7%, up from 16.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 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
Healthcare Company
25%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some solution on the basis of Tricentis NeoLoad. We tested both virtual infrastructu...
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

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Test Management vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.