We performed a comparison between Qualitia Automation Studio and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"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."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"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."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
Qualitia Automation Studio is ranked 23rd in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. Qualitia Automation Studio is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Qualitia Automation Studio writes "Good Tool for Non Technical Users". 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". Qualitia Automation Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.