We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ 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."Selenium web driver - Java."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"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."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"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."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 58 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, 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.