Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

We use the solution for load and performance testing activities for web-based applications, Siebel CRM, and Oracle E-Business Suite.

The product has enhanced features that let us cut down the script development and maintenance time. We can quickly correlate the values and create the scripts. When there are changes to our application, the maintenance becomes easier. The dashboards are readily available after the executions. The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis.

The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines. The integration with self-service portals and tools must be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The tool is stable. The initial versions had issues. With every new version, the product is improving and becoming more stable and robust. I rate the stability a seven to eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven to seven and a half out of ten. More than 25 people are using the product in our organization.

We have been in contact with the support team. Since Neotys became Tricentis, the turnaround time for support queries has increased considerably. It takes longer to get a response, and it impacts delivery. I would have rated Neotys’ support an eight or eight and a half out of ten. However, in the current state, I rate support a six or six and a half out of ten.

Neutral

We were using tools like LoadRunner along with NeoLoad. However, NeoLoad provided a better balance between the cost and benefits.

The initial setup was quite easy. The deployment can be done quickly for a single set of servers or workstations. However, the time taken depends on how extensive the infrastructure is.

The tool is not cheap. However, the cost is a bit lower than other tools like LoadRunner.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, my recommendation would depend on other parameters like the extent of testing and investment that they may want to do. There is some investment associated with it. It may not be justified if they are just doing load testing as one of the activities. Considering the ease of use, technical setup, and level of support provided, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Tricentis NeoLoad has good user interface. Users don't need to learn any coding language to perform performance scripting. Additionally, it offers correlation, which is a concept for handling dynamic values. NeoLoad provides an easy mechanism to accomplish this, similar to LoadRunner.

There are certain activities that need to be performed to coordinate these activities effectively. NeoLoad is one tool for all the requirements, but the licensing varies. 

I've done it for certification purposes. I've used LoadRunner and JMeter for scalability testing. So, if you're scaling up with more nodes, you'll require additional machines and load injectors.

I like the content of Tricentis NeoLoad and receive their task notifications. I'm currently in the process of completing their certification, which is very good. It's highly interactive, and the use-case-based scenarios are engaging.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for a year.

NeoLoad is offering good support.

Neutral

The solution is expensive tool. If I put LoadRunner and NeoLoad side by side, NeoLoad is expensive than LoadRunner by 15%.

We should ask the implementing managers why they are proposing JMeter only now. They may be considering it due to its status as a free open-source tool, which is why I am forced to use it instead of Tricentis NeoLoad or LoadRunner. However, LoadRunner services are specifically supported, although they sometimes take a lot of time and may not always resolve issues.

Due to numerous issues, people are inclined to explore new testing options. NeoLoad is a good tool for this purpose as it offers a wide range of features that are ready to use.

When selecting tools for load testing, it's important to consider NeoLoad, as it provides everything under one roof. This is unlike other tools where understanding which tool to use can be a challenge, leading to initial difficulties. Additionally, JMeter, despite being free, can be complex to use.

If I am using a Postgres tool and redeploying the pressure, the time and effort required for learning and scaling will be more efficient with NeoLoad compared to JMeter. This efficiency will lead to greater productivity.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for Tricentis NeoLoad is performance testing and engineering, where we test or create scripts for different web-based applications on Tricentis NeoLoad. We also do multi-user testing on the tool and server monitoring to see how the servers behave. We also hook our CI/CD pipeline with Azure and Tricentis NeoLoad to trigger the test, then collect test statistics.

Tricentis NeoLoad has improved the organization I'm in as a performance testing tool that's easy to implement. My team found that Tricentis NeoLoad had no issues regarding the learning curve, including learning and using its features, versus LoadRunner, which had a long learning curve.

The result collation feature of Tricentis NeoLoad, including pulling the load generators or different remote machines from the cloud and using those with the test machines, was also fascinating and helpful to my organization.

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.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier.

In its next release, I'd like to see more compatibility with new protocols or applications from Tricentis NeoLoad.

I started using Tricentis NeoLoad in 2017, so I have almost five years of experience with it.

Tricentis NeoLoad has a very good performance. Stability-wise, my team didn't experience any issues with it. Even the older versions of Tricentis NeoLoad didn't crash, so the tool is more than ninety percent stable.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable tool. You just need to purchase an additional license to scale, add more machines, and expand a particular deployment. Scaling Tricentis NeoLoad is easy.

My rating for the Tricentis NeoLoad technical support is four out of five because I never faced any issues with support. Issue resolution was on time. The Tricentis support staff had the expertise on Tricentis NeoLoad, and my team didn't have problems during instances when an escalation was needed to resolve the issue.

We used a lot of tools before using Tricentis NeoLoad such as LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Test Manager, and Silk Performer, but those tools weren't as innovative as Tricentis NeoLoad.

The initial setup for Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward, and I didn't see any issues in that area.

The Tricentis team was involved in implementing Tricentis NeoLoad, so it wasn't in-house.

I've seen twenty percent ROI from Tricentis NeoLoad, at least the last time I looked at the report.

I don't have information on the licensing cost of Tricentis NeoLoad because my manager handles that. From a testing perspective and based on company requirements, the current license is for one thousand users.

We evaluated Compuware and other tools, but Tricentis NeoLoad had a better UI.

Right now, six people use Tricentis NeoLoad within the company.

Two people take care of the deployment of Tricentis NeoLoad, and two to three people handle its maintenance.

There's a plan to increase usage for Tricentis NeoLoad, mainly because my company is trying to explore more tool features. If it's easier to integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with third-party monitoring tools, then usage could be increased.

My advice to others planning to implement Tricentis NeoLoad is to first look into the applications to be tested because there's a limitation in the tool right now, particularly the feasibility of testing Web and Citrix Desk applications. There's also no support for other applications. If you need testing for different protocols, for example, Oracle or JDBC database applications, you'll need to use a different tool because Tricentis NeoLoad currently doesn't have compatibility. It's better first to find out what applications you want to test, your testing goal, and if that would be compatible with Tricentis NeoLoad.

I'm rating Tricentis NeoLoad as seven out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is for performance testing.

The solution has provided us with options to improve our applications by allowing us to design scenarios, and export our scripts to the Git repository, CACD integration, Dynatrace, and AppDynamics integration.

The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially.

The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature.

I have been using the solution for just over one year.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable based on your requirements.

The technical support team is good. They have a 72-hour window to respond to our requests and they usually get back to us within 24 hours. If I miss anything in a project the support team will develop the script required as per requirements, and provide a solution to me.

Positive

We previously used LoadRunner but the cost was very high. 

The initial setup is straightforward if you are familiar with the solution. You just need to download and install the solution from their site. If you are installing the solution on one machine it can be running in under one hour. If you are installing the solution on multiple machines you need to first install a controller version followed by a generator that has to be configured in the controller version.

The implementation was completed by our internal vendor team.

The solution requires an annual license.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated LoadRunner and JMeter.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

In older versions, the network protocol only supported up to six users per ID. The latest version 9.4 has been improved by increasing the number of users per ID to 30.

With this solution, you can add users to Tricentis NeoLoad Web so they can visit the site and see what is happening. When running a load test the users have read-only access and can see what is happening on the server side with the number of requests in use, the throughput, and the failure rate.

JMeter is another solution that can support all the protocols but we found that it was not recording properly and would not allow us to customize as required so we chose this solution.

Any person thinking of using this solution must have a minimum knowledge of gathering and using variables, and be familiar with performance testing and JavaScript in order to operate successfully.

I worked for a real estate company and we used this solution to deal with scripting and anything related to documentation; uploading, downloading, etc. The product was built on .NET technology. We also used the product for mobile device performance testing. We had a few devices sitting on the Perfecto cloud, and we integrated those via NeoLoad API. NeoLoad has an integration framework in place for Perfecto so we were able to develop a few scripts, execute them and monitor the performance on a mobile device. I'm a senior test lead. 

The significant improvement to the company was in cost savings which is the main reason we migrated from LoadRunner. NeoLoad is about half the price. 

I have also worked on LoadRunner Micro Focus and JMeter, and when it comes to scripting, NeoLoad is more user-friendly. The capturing of dynamic variables is very simple in NeoLoad and doesn't require the writing of exclusive functions. It's a matter of drag and drop, or choosing an option. Scripting those applications is not a challenging process. NeoLoad is about half the price of JMeter and serves the same purpose. It also has the benefit of mobile integration frameworks which are already in place with the help of APIs. 

Many applications these days have dashboards, video images, and the like. The rendering of heavy-weighted applications can't be scripted via NeoLoad, so we have to use LoadRunner as an extra client. I think that component could be added to NeoLoad where the UI has more object rendering. For now, we cannot test that in NeoLoad and so people tend to go for the two client protocol of LoadRunner. For now, the GUA still sits on Windows so we do the scripting on our local machine and then transfer them to the cloud. It would be great if we could do everything on the cloud with NeoLoad. 

I used this product for two years. 

This is a stable solution that provides good performance. 

The solution is scalable. 

The customer service is good. We are based in India, and Tricentis also has an offshore team, so they're available in all time zones. I work on multi-vendor projects throughout the world. The company provides a flexible service and a fast response time. 

The installation was simple and was carried out in-house. We initially had some issues with crashing but that was related to Windows and not the product. At the time, I was working with a four-member team. 

We saw a good return on investment. In my tenure with NeoLoad over two years, I identified around 43 performance defects. That's a huge amount in a relatively short space of time. 

A couple of years ago, I paid around $USD9,000 per year for 250 users. The license fee includes web protocol, STTP protocol, and API. There might be an additional cost if you want Citrix, RDP or SAP.

This is a user-friendly and straightforward solution with a good support system. Unlike JMeter or LoadRunner, it doesn't require significant coding knowledge. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are using it for performance testing.

It's improving our test lifecycle time. It's taking less time compared to the previous tool.

The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support.

The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times. 

There should also be support for more protocols for desktop applications.

I have been using this solution since 2019. It has been four years. 

I'd rate it a four out of ten in terms of stability. The GUI isn't stable enough.

I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of scalability. 

Within our team, we have around 25 users. Their roles are testers, test leads, and test managers.

We aren't planning to increase its usage. The way we are using NeoLoad and other tools is pretty streamlined. We are using NeoLoad 90% as per our requirements, and we aren't planning to increase its usage.

I'd rate their support a four out of ten. The problem is that we have to raise a support ticket in the portal. They usually take a long time to reply. The first or second response from the team usually covers the basic tasks, which the team would have already done before reaching out to their support team. So, by the time we get a proper response from them, we might have moved away from that particular project or we might have found some alternative. That part is a bit bad.

Neutral

We were using Micro Focus LoadRunner. We switched because of the organization's requirements.

As compared to other tools, the initial setup is easy, but there is some complexity that comes with the Kubernetes-based setup of one of the components. So, it's a bit easier than others, but there are certain aspects that make it difficult. I'd rate it a six out of ten in terms of the ease of the setup.

Its deployment took a couple of weeks, which also included testing. 

It was deployed in-house. We deployed it ourselves based on the documentation.

For deployment, we only need one employee who has experience in cloud deployment. For maintenance also, one admin is enough. 

I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing.

We evaluated open-source tools such as Scala and JMeter. We went for NeoLoad because of the collaboration feature, which isn't there in Scala and JMeter. Another reason was the enterprise support, which doesn't come with open-source tools.

It's definitely worth a try. Compared to LoadRunner and other tools, it gives more flexibility and is easier to maintain. 

Overall, I'd rate Tricentis NeoLoad a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for performance testing.

The solution is easy to learn and use.

They should improve the reporting feature of the solution. It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup.

We have been using the solution for two years.

We faced issues with our on-cloud setup once or twice within the past year. Apart from that, the solution is relatively stable.

The solution's scalability depends on the number of users and what they use it for. We have five or six users in our company using the solution. It scales as much as we require on-cloud. The scalability on-premises depends on the number of hardware and licenses we have purchased.

The solution's setup was straightforward. It took five minutes to complete the process. 

The solution is quite expensive. But users can select the features they require and pay accordingly.

The buyers should make a purchase decision depending on the usage of their project protocols. They should use the solution if they have to deal with a load on-premises. It is quite a good product compared with other solutions. But working better for on-premises setup doesn't make it an exceptional product. If you're working with web API only, better products are available.

I rate the solution as a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is for web applications and also SAP GUI—not SAP Applications but the UI version of SAP. For both these areas, it was working fine from the NeoLoad side.

The solution has been moved to the cloud version.

The first benefit is that it's quite cheaper. In the market there are mainly three tools which dominate: JMeter, LoadRunner, and NeoLoad. JMeter is open source. LoadRunner is quite expensive but has quite good features. NeoLoad is competitively quite cheaper compared to LoadRunner, and it provides great features, except in some areas. For instance, it doesn't allow some SAP applications. There are some areas where it's a little bit tough but other than that, it's quite good.

I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools. JMeter is a little bit tough, but LoadRunner gives you many features. For any codeless value, it is easy to detect from the NeoLoad side.

The SAP area could be improved. Not the GUI applications, SAP log-on, or something like that. We can see features and use NeoLoad properly in all the normal SAP log-on areas. I haven't tried it, but I have heard that Citrix-based applications don't work properly in the SAP application. In those types of different areas, there could be more protocol flexibility.

If there is a high number of users on NeoLoad—like around 5,000 or 6,000—it sometimes feels like that might be a bottleneck for the performance. That could be improved. With more users, there shouldn't be any issues from the tool side.

With scripting in a different browser, sometimes there are compatibility issues and it doesn't generate the script properly. Those types of crashes could be removed.

I was using NeoLoad six months ago because of some performance testing issues. Previous to using NeoLoad, we used LoadRunner.

The stability is good. It's quite reliable. Compared with a different browser, it sometimes creates problems and bugs. With the number of users increasing, sometimes the CPU and system where it was connected increases because of trade concurrency or something like that. That can be a little bit problematic. Other than that, things are fine.

Ongoing maintenance is not required. Whenever we have deployed the tools, if any version upgrade happens, we just check what the upgrade is exactly and someone on the deployment team connects the documents and everything. They check the document accordingly and update the version. It's not complicated.

We have roughly eight to nine performance testers, including the performance lead, the performance engineers, and the performance testers. Everyone will be running different projects. We'll be using the tool and running the performance testing based on the license and everything. The user count license will be ramping up the load. There are instances where multiple teams are using NeoLoad at the same time with different licenses. There has been no conflict error with each other, and we haven't seen a problem with different license things. Because we have two licenses, two tests can be executed parallel to each other.

The solution is scalable. After the number of users increases to 5,000 or 6,000, we have occasionally found problems. Below that, things are fine and the response times are good.

Tech support is okay. When we had 50 users, we reached out to the tech support team and within two to three days we received a response. The time took longer because it was a complicated problem. Response time is perfect.

I previously used LoadRunner. One of the reasons we had to switch to Neotys was because it was quite cheaper, but I still prefer LoadRunner to NeoLoad.

The deployment process is very straightforward. It's not complex. Only one associate deployed it, so not much effort was required.

There was no impact on the work that we used to do with performance testing when we moved to NeoLoad. Our normal performance testing was able to continue and it was going perfectly well. Return on investment was better because our deliverables were not getting impacted and it was cheaper, so return on investment increased a lot compared to LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I wouldn't give it a 10 because there are some issues that need to be resolved from the tool side.

Before using the tool, you need to understand the product you are going to design, the different types of performance applications that you are going to do performance testing with, and whether or not NeoLoad supports it. If yes, then go ahead. Otherwise, I would say go back to LoadRunner because whatever the application is, LoadRunner will support it.