We use this tool for load testing on web-browser based APIs.
The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to.
The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive.
We would like to see more focus on support for other types of endpoints. Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols.
We have been using NeoLoad for about six months.
We have experienced no issues in terms of stability.
Scalability has not been a problem for what we use.
There are probably five users, including performance engineers and performance architects. It is only being used in one portfolio area right now, but we plan to expand our usage.
I don't have any experience with technical support.
We are currently using RadView WebLOAD in addition to Neotys NeoLoad. I am in the process of determining whether we should standardize on one tool, and choosing the one that makes the most sense, or continue to use both of them.
The reason we started working with NeoLoad is that it was a carryover from another site that I was working on. I was looking to see if there was an opportunity.
The subscription pricing of NeoLoad is higher than RadView WebLOAD.
The initial setup is straightforward. Integration with our environment was seamless.
Maintenance is minimal and can be done with one person.
Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based.
My advice to anybody who is implementing NeoLoad is to first understand the technical requirements. Also, it is important to make sure that you have access to the endpoints that you want to load-test on.
Overall, it seems like a good product.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
