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

Telerik Test Studio 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

Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (25th), Regression Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (26th)
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 2.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 11.3%, down from 17.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad11.3%
Telerik Test Studio2.0%
Other86.7%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.
reviewer2732589 - PeerSpot reviewer
senior test engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Positive experience with seamless setup and responsive support but pricing and version compatibility need improvement
I'm not ready to share what areas of Tricentis NeoLoad have room for improvement now. The price could be more friendly, and it was impossible to continue using the same version of Tricentis NeoLoad, as we were forced to move to the next version. Sometimes there were compatibility problems, and that was a major problem with backward compatibility issues.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"The stability is okay."
"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 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 reporting features are great."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
 

Cons

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The product is expensive."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
"Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"The licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
19%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
6%
 

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

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,371 professionals have used our research since 2012.