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

OpenText Silk Performer vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
20th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 November 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.1%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 13.8%, down from 16.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
OpenText Silk Performer1.1%
Other85.1%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.
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

"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The reporting features are great."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
 

Cons

"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"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 licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
"Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad's pricing a seven out of ten."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,869 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
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise49
 

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

Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.
872,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.