Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Selenium HQ vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, increases ROI, and offers cost-efficient automation, despite needing skilled users for optimal performance.
Sentiment score
7.0
Tricentis NeoLoad delivers significant ROI by enhancing testing efficiency, saving costs, and quickly addressing performance issues.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.0
Selenium HQ's open-source model means no official support, but extensive community resources offer effective help for troubleshooting.
Sentiment score
7.6
Tricentis NeoLoad offers responsive, expert support, praised for flexibility, though some experience occasional delays; overall satisfaction remains high.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Selenium HQ is scalable and efficient for large scenarios, though hardware and configuration can impact performance.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad efficiently scales for varying user volumes, supporting large applications with high user satisfaction and deployment flexibility.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Selenium HQ is stable across platforms, with minor issues in Internet Explorer; most find Chrome and Firefox satisfactory.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis NeoLoad is generally stable, though large-scale performance tests and environment settings may cause minor stability issues.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

Selenium HQ requires better browser support, enhanced reporting, frequent updates, mobile testing, improved documentation, and user-friendly features.
NeoLoad needs protocol support, UI improvements, affordable pricing, better documentation, and refined reporting for large projects.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair.
 

Setup Cost

Selenium HQ is a cost-effective, open-source tool, though additional expenses may arise for maintenance, implementation, and expertise.
Tricentis NeoLoad is seen as cost-effective and flexible, adaptable to business needs, but costs can rise with expanded use.
 

Valuable Features

Selenium HQ provides cost-free, adaptable, cross-platform testing with customization, CI tool compatibility, and a supportive community.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers easy script creation, integration, and comprehensive analysis for effective performance testing across various environments.
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues.
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (6th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Selenium HQ is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.6%, down 4.6% compared to last year.
Tricentis NeoLoad, on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 13.8% mindshare, down 15.4% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.6%
Tricentis Tosca18.5%
BrowserStack10.2%
Other67.7%
Functional Testing Tools
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
Apache JMeter16.4%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.7%
Other56.1%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
Dirk O. Schweier - PeerSpot reviewer
Key reports enable insightful analysis and useful for continuous performance validation
Since the ownership of NeoLoad has changed to Tricentis, they have done a very poor job with license management. They changed the license policy very abruptly. The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair. The smallest license fee is very high, and there is no starter package at the moment.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business40
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise50
 

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
Do you recommend Tricentis NeoLoad?
I highly recommend Tricentis NeoLoad for companies that are in need of a versatile load and performance testing tool. This relatively inexpensive solution is recognized by organizations like Oxford...
What is your primary use case for Neotys NeoLoad?
My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some solution on the basis of Tricentis NeoLoad. We tested both virtual infrastructu...
What do you like most about Tricentis NeoLoad?
The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individu...
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.