We performed a comparison between Tricentis Flood and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools."Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"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 performance of the tool needs to improve."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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 Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 58 reviews. Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.