We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"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."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"The protocol support 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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"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."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 58 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". 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". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.