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.
"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."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"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 reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"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."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"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 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 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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 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.
