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
24th
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
7.3
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 13.4%, down from 17.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad13.4%
OpenText Silk Performer1.5%
Other85.1%
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.
AnantJoshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director Intelligent Automation at Truglobal
Performance testing has delivered diverse global retail loads and generates clear diagnostic reports
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the load generation, I find that the cost increases, especially when I want to generate a load for a global customer with different loads in different regions.

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."
"It helped us to improve the performance of all our applications."
"It provides easy mobile performance testing solution for our customers."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"I do like this tool, it's very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"This tool is easy to use and requires little code implementation thanks to many predefined areas."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"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."
"At times we have had issues with load generator agent stability, but tuning the heap and documented network hacks greatly reduced this."
"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."
"It's straightforward to install and configure, but complex to convert scripts from a previous product to work in NeoLoad."
"I also ran into installation issues with NeoLoad when the installation never completed."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"The tool is not cheap."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"Licence cost is very attractive compared to other vendor tools and also there are many license alternatives."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
910,454 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
10%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise13
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?
Tricentis NeoLoad use cases were for retail, specifically a US based retail customer.
What needs improvement with Tricentis NeoLoad?
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the lo...
 

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: August 2026.
910,454 professionals have used our research since 2012.