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

Tricentis NeoLoad vs UBIK Load Pack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 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 (3rd)
UBIK Load Pack
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
20th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 18.3%, up from 15.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of UBIK Load Pack is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Vivekanandan Vallinayagam - PeerSpot reviewer
Has a highly intuitive UI and easy integrations and has an impressive reporting framework
The solution offers an easy setup process. Tricentis NeoLoad has intuitive installers to facilitate a seamless deployment process. Our organization works with both the on-prem and SaaS models of Tricentis NeoLoad as per the client's needs. As part of the deployment process in our company, at first, we typically provision some VMs, and then we get the installers and license codes upon purchase. Following the aforementioned step, the .exe controller is installed, and in the help section of the product's portal, the license needs to be applied. The deployment process of the solution takes around one or two days. The product doesn't require many resources for deployment and can be easily maintained. The SaaS version is maintained by the vendor, while the on-prem version allows the user to archive the reports and results.
Use UBIK Load Pack?
Share your opinion
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,028 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
Educational Organization
37%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
SKY, CISCO, NOKIA, PANASONIC, ERICSSON GROUP, ADEO, VEVO, GEFCO, AGFA HealthCare, STIBO SYSTEMS
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: June 2025.
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.