"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"The solution is free to use."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The stability is okay."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"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."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"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."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
Selenium HQ is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 26 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Highly customizable and the best tool out there to do automated testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca, Appium and Micro Focus UFT One, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Flood 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.
