We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"The stability is okay."
"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."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"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 would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"The product is expensive."
"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."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional 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.
