We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"It's easy to implement."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"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 licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"Version control does not work well."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"The product is expensive."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"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."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and k6 Open Source. See our ReadyAPI vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.