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

Tricentis Flood 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

Tricentis Flood
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 1.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 18.1%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options
The solution is not in an optimal state. During POC, we analyzed tool is kept on upgrading. The patch deployment is happening in parallel, things that are working today are not working tomorrow. We eventually sorted it out with help of CSM. We integrated this tool with other software such as Azure client, but many times without a valid or visible reason, the connectivity was breaking. Improvement suggestions- The dashboard creation for the reporting needs to be easier. Currently, the solution does not support multiple script executions and we would like to see support for this.
RangaReddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible
I really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"It's a low-code testing tool"
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"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 reporting features are great."
"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."
 

Cons

"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"Since the ownership of NeoLoad has changed to Tricentis, they have done a very poor job with license management."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 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
22%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
48%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Tricentis Flood?
Tricentis Flood is the kind of versatile load and performance testing solution that my organization and I cannot help but recommend. It is recognized by companies across a wide variety of fields as...
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?
The solution is for continuous performance validation. The important thing is that it's not just for one load test and then forgotten. I try to integrate the performance tests into our pipelines, w...
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

Flood IO
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis Flood vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.