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

StresStimulus vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

StresStimulus
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of StresStimulus is 2.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 12.9%, down from 15.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad12.9%
StresStimulus2.2%
Other84.9%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shiju Chandran - PeerSpot reviewer
Good performance testing, simple UI, and the ability to run the same script across different domains
StresStimulus simulates browser HTTP calls. I would love to see where it can also simulate a real browser to measure visually complete time. For example, to be something similar to TruClient. We run tests on SQL statements and stored procedures directly, even before integrating with UI. I wish there were a way to connect to my application DB and run SQL queries using a JDBC connection. In a world where the applications are changing every day, I hope StresStimulus comes up with an option to compare HTTP requests before and after deployment and tell me what requests have changed. This would help avoid rescripting every time, and this would be a huge deal.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Designed to be a modern testing tool, StresStimulus made it easy for us to upgrade from an older deprecated testing tool and adapt to Agile DevOps testing principles by shifting left with performance testing."
"Compared to other tools, there is not a whole lot to Stress Stimulus UI. This makes it easy to use, be it while scripting, executing, or having to train someone new to the team."
"Technical support is great."
"It's a low-code testing tool"
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The reporting features are great."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"The stability is okay."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
 

Cons

"We run tests on SQL statements and stored procedures directly, even before integrating with UI. I wish there were a way to connect to my application DB and run SQL queries using a JDBC connection."
"StresStimulus has a dedicated blog where users of the tool can log new feature requests or enhancements to existing features."
"Result analysis (snap-out tabs for side-by-side comparisons) need improvement."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"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."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"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."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"From a licensing cost perspective, I rate the product an eight out of ten since it is a cheap solution that looks costly for certain areas."
"Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
"The solution requires an annual license."
"Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions."
"The licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 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
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Hospitality Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise49
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

No data available
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about StresStimulus vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.