No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

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
22nd
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
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.6%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 11.3%, down from 18.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad11.3%
OpenText Silk Performer1.6%
Other87.1%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Principal Software Architect at OpenText
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.
SK
Senior Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Performance testing has improved daily analysis workflows and supports detailed repair decisions
For Tricentis NeoLoad, I don't think there is much that needs improvement. Probably the use of the features can be made much more user-friendly, but this one didn't take it. Other than that, I'm not sure what could be improved. I would probably like to see some new functionalities for Tricentis NeoLoad, such as a converting mechanism, so that if my earlier project could be running, loader, some of the tools, if they have the converter-enabled in the back to the tool, probably I can just use the converter, and they would do the script conversion. For our script, they are open to order at the new system. Other than that, probably they can bring them into that suite together to the new role so they can utilize that as well to do some data population there. For now, we could have some product to create the data, and then we would like to ask in another. Then we did two reviews; it probably says that has been enabled for the tool. That will be once using so that we can have a single source which can run yet, as it's currently running one for a function or a performance. They don't have anything for this data, actually. That is also there, so we can just move. We can just move left to that. That can be used as a platform for both functional support system, but we can do that as very effective. If there are something like service utilization and the ability to place some of the visible analogs, that would make it much easier to have one tool that scales all the services.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We haven't used Silk on any project where it hasn't been able to support whatever we have needed."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"I have worked on various different performance testing tools, and I found NeoLoad very much within budget without compromising the quality of the product."
"I do like this tool, it's very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"The best features of this tool, which I value the most in Tricentis NeoLoad, are the convenient predefined set of metrics for different platforms, and it was most easy to set up and start running."
"Implementing this product has allowed us to increase the number of projects that get load testing, and the frequency by which we re-test our performance."
"The solution has provided us with options to improve our applications by allowing us to design scenarios, and export our scripts to the Git repository, CACD integration, Dynatrace, and AppDynamics integration."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
 

Cons

"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
"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."
"Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"We purchased a two-year license but broke the contract after 18 months."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"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."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise51
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis NeoLoad?
The vendor offers flexible licensing options. Tricentis NeoLoad has a SaaS platform. The solution can probably be available between 30 and 50 thousand per year, while open-source tools cost way less.
 

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, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: April 2026.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.