No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Tricentis Flood vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
18th
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
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 2.8%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 14.7%, up from 13.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad14.7%
Tricentis Flood2.8%
Other82.5%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
SME (Subject Matter Expert) at Maersk
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.
AnantJoshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director Intelligent Automation at Truglobal
Performance testing has delivered diverse global retail loads and generates clear diagnostic reports
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the load generation, I find that the cost increases, especially when I want to generate a load for a global customer with different loads in different regions.

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."
"We are able to use NeoLoad to quickly expand performance testing to all critical business applications and address some key performance issues."
"A great deal of improvement in application performance happened because we could pin point the bottlenecks."
"It's a low-code testing tool"
"The pros outweigh the cons and so NeoLoad is highly recommended over its competitors."
"I can recommend Tricentis NeoLoad as an alternative tool when the part of Microsoft, especially if one does not have the budget ready to go for the others."
"The most valuable feature that we've found useful is that NeoLoad provides a variety of bandwidths."
"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."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
 

Cons

"The solution lacks a little bit in the reporting features."
"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."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"It needs improvements when handling binary values."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"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."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"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."
"We purchased a two-year license but broke the contract after 18 months."
"It would be nice if this could be cheaper."
"It wasn't easy to learn how to use NeoLoad and it has a bit of a learning curve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad's pricing a seven out of ten."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"The vendor offers flexible licensing options"
"The solution requires an annual license."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"The tool is not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
921,148 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
No data available
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise51
 

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?
Tricentis NeoLoad use cases were for retail, specifically a US based retail customer.
What needs improvement with Tricentis NeoLoad?
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the lo...
 

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: November 2026.
921,148 professionals have used our research since 2012.