Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

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.

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.

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.

My company uses Tricentis NeoLoad for critical projects, so its use cases vary. To make it short, the protocols and web services include the areas around Tricentis NeoLoad.

The most valuable features of the solution are visible when we work on web services in our company since it seems to be much more competitive in nature when compared to LoadRunner. When we work on certain protocols in our company in Tricentis NeoLoad, we find it much better than LaodRunner. Tricentis NeoLoad is comparatively faster and quicker when compared to LoadRunner.

The coverage provided by Tricentis NeoLoad is not much when compared to LoadRunner. Cost-wise, Tricentis NeoLoad is cheaper than LoadRunner. Both the aforementioned mentioned points create a balance between Tricentis NeoLoad and LoadRunner. If a person has to specifically look into a certain product, then that person can go ahead with Tricentis NeoLoad. There isn't much when it comes to the licensing models offered by Tricentis NeoLoad, while LoadRunner offers different licensing options. Considering some of our company's requirements, we would consider Tricentis NeoLoad since it is price-wise a cheap solution. When it comes to LoadRunner, they offer cloud licenses along with different sets of licenses. In certain areas, the licensing models offered by LoadRunner are better, while at other times, the licensing models offered by Tricentis NeoLoad are better. If Tricentis NeoLoad offers different kinds of licensing versions, then the solution's price can be much lower than LoadRunner and the other solutions in the market.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for four years. I use Tricentis NeoLoad Version 7 and Version 8. I did not work on the latest version of the solution owing to some of its issues. I work as a consultant for the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten since some versions of the solution are not stable, and we saw a lot of issues with them in our company. If a person wants to work on the solution, then that person needs to know which version is stable and which is not. If a person doesn't know which version of the solution is stable, then that person may face a lot of errors when running certain executions.

Considering a specific set of protocols, Tricentis NeoLoad's scalability is the same as LoadRunner. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup phase a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises. In our company, we work with the cloud version of the solution. The solution is deployed on the cloud model if necessary. We run the solution on the cloud model in our company for stakeholders and teams not locally available but would like to get involved with the solution. If a team planning to use the solution is available locally and falls under the same geolocation, we can go for the on-premises version in our company.

The deployment process of the solution took around two days.

Tricentis NeoLoad doesn't offer different pricing models. In our company, when we go with short-term projects, Tricentis NeoLoad serves as an investment tool.

From a licensing cost perspective, I rate the product an eight out of ten since it is a cheap solution that looks costly for certain areas.

There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side. From the cost perspective, users should consider whether the solution is useful for them from a long-term or short-term point of view while also considering the integrations and loads they plan to manage with the solution. I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad and LoadRunner to those planning to purchase a solution.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad to test risk with API calls and make some small automation with the API calls using small Java scripts to take data from the file.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is SaaS but we use on-premise because we mostly work with the clients in its sensitive data that's required, like, only on-premise usage.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is Software as a Service. We prefer on-premise usage because we mostly work with clients dealing with sensitive data that requires on-premise usage.

The scalability, support protocols, and features of Tricentis NeoLoad made it easy and straightforward for us to complete the same tasks for our customers in the server cloud. We had to verify the certificate and attach the file within a protocol, which was a challenge in the server cloud.

From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest.

There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

The solution is stable. In the past six months, I have only encountered a few issues or bugs when the program crashed. I believe this may have been due to my own configuration settings.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is not very good.

I previously used Cisco SMARTnet but the generators for reports were difficult to configure on the backend so we switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more user-friendly.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed using the manual and did not integrate the solution with anything, such as the CID tool; it was only for small projects.

We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month. The cost is increasing each year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have three people using the solution in our organization.

As long as the organization's requirements are met, I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad.

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.