"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The stability is okay."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The stability has always been very good."
"It's great for the development of .NET."
"Customization is the most powerful feature of this product."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"What I like most about Visual Studio Test Professional is the way people publish templates and publish integration."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"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."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"The documentation is limited."
"One of the problems with this solution is you need to be highly technically skilled to operate it, it is not for everyone."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 7 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 10 reviews. Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 7.6, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Offers lots of features, including memory analysis and code sharing". Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT Developer and Micro Focus UFT One.
We monitor all Performance 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.
