Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

We had three specific use cases we targeted Tricentis NeoLoad for. The first was for services, the second for terminal emulation mainframe applications, and the third was for the web.  We are looking for a more cost effective, efficient (low code) alternative to our current framework. 

Tricentis provides great documentation and collaboration.

The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was the low/no code for the web.

Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the range of codeless scripting such as with terminal emulation apps. 

We did a trial of Tricentis NeoLoad for approximately three months.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution.

We did not have any problems with the scalability of Tricentis NeoLoad but did not fully push the product.  We have approximately six or seven people involved in the POC. This included senior engineers and test developers.

We do not plan to expand the use of this solution at this time because it does not meet all of our needs.  Would consider a second look in the future.

The technical support from Tricentis NeoLoad is very helpful.

We have used Micro Focus LoadRunner. However, it is expensive and there appears to be a declining number of users.  Tricentis NeoLoad is more affordable and would better enable our pipeline but has fewer features.  We are not in a hurry to change but will continue to review products of interest and will continue monitoring Tricentis product roadmap.

The initial setup of Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward. We had the installation instructions and the packages, and it took us approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation in-house.

Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions.

I would encourage others to take a look at this solution. It is a good solution and they maintain the technical expertise needed for success.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad an eight out of ten.

We used it for putting the load on the system. For example, for a big sale of an online marketplace, we created the scripts with performance testing tools such as Neotys and LoadRunner. We used to search for a product and add it to the cart. We used to capture all this traffic through these tools, and then, we used to do the real-time testing. So, we used to simulate the real-world user scenario. For example, if the company was expecting around 20,000 users on a specific day, we used to simulate the volume of 20,000 users on the application. 

The deployment model depends on a client's requirements and licensing. If we have a sufficient budget, we always go for the SaaS model. If we have a limitation of licensing, then we prefer to go for on-premises deployment. We usually need to get support from the admin team to set up everything. We used to take care of this aspect so that the support team will be able to do things on our behalf, such as setting up things in their environment.

We can quickly do scripting with NeoLoad, which makes it easier to give timelines and meet them. We can easily tell a client that within this much time, we can provide the end-to-end scripts, and we'll be able to do the execution along with all the activities. 

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.

We can easily do scripting with NeoLoad. We just have to understand the basic functionality to create a script. There is not that much effort that we have to put in. If I have to transfer knowledge to a new person or a beginner, he will also be able to pick it up quickly. 

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.

One issue that we faced was that multiple users weren't able to work on the same application. We used to create multiple scripts based on the application and based on the projects, and then we used to integrate all of them in a single place. With NeoLoad, if you have to do this activity, to import a script, one user has to log off, and the second user has to copy the script and improve it, which is a time-consuming activity. These are the things that can block any further activity.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

I would rate it a nine out of 10 in terms of scalability. It is currently being used extensively. My organization is huge, and we have an employee count of more than 300,000. I wouldn't be able to provide the exact count, but for my project, 20 people are using this tool.

They usually clarify any queries or issues within three hours. They usually come back to us within three hours, which is as per our SLA, so that's good. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

Previously, we were using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. It is still in use. We haven't completely removed it. We switched because of the licensing and the time taken to create a script.

Neotys has taken some references from LoadRunner to create NeoLoad. So, in terms of functionality, NeoLoad and LoadRunner are quite the same.

The licensing cost of NeoLoad is lesser than LoadRunner. LoadRunner supports a higher number of protocols than NeoLoad. LoadRunner has more protocols for interacting with the application than NeoLoad. So, there are multiple things that we can simulate with LoadRunner, such as a desktop application or traffic for a banking domain.

If I have to create a script in LoadRunner, it usually takes around six hours, but if I do the same thing in Neotys, it usually takes around one and a half hours to complete everything. So, we can provide a deadline for deploying a script. Time is money, so NeoLoad is better in terms of time.

It is straightforward. You don't need much understanding from the installation perspective. You just need to download the .exe and install it. You just need the license, and if you are going for the trial version, you just upload the license. If you are going for a business license, you just have to tie up with them and reach an agreement. That's it. 

It is a one-day thing. One day is enough to complete the installation and the setup.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, we usually have an admin team and a security team to put patches, etc.

Its licensing cost is very less.

If you are dealing only with web HTTP, you can definitely go ahead with this solution because time is money. 

I would rate NeoLoad an eight out of 10.

We use the tool to do POC level activity.

I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time.

The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool’s setup is straightforward. The installation takes a couple of hours to complete.

I would rate the solution an eight-point five out of ten.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing across our product lines.

My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution.

I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly.

The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag.

We've been using Tricentis NeoLoad for about three years.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution, and my company didn't have any problems with its stability.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable solution. It tests performance, so it has to be scalable.

Technical support for Tricentis NeoLoad is good. My company hasn't had many issues with support. If I were to rate support from one to five, my rating would be four out of five.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a solution that's easy to set up. Deploying it wouldn't take much time, as deployment could be completed within just a few days.

Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000.

I'm using the latest version of Tricentis NeoLoad.

In my company, two people from the performance testing department use Tricentis NeoLoad.

My rating for Tricentis NeoLoad is eight out of ten.

My advice to others looking to start using Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's a good product, and it would be money well spent.

My company is into product development, and it's a user or a customer of Tricentis NeoLoad.

The support is very good. They have excellent community support.

The pricing is pretty good.

The stability is okay. 

There are still some glitches that they need to improve. We have given support feedback as well when we have some issues. They're very responsive and they do work to fix and improve issues. 

LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all.

I've used the solution for five years.

We do occasionally deal with glitches. The previous versions are very stable. The newer versions have some glitches and sometimes it hangs, however, for the most part, it's okay.

There are issues around some protocol settings, like when we use encryption. When a person uses the banking application, the user and password are encrypted. We have issues with the encryption protocol. Lately, some settings may have changed and it seems to be working.

While it's a good solution, I cannot speak to the scalability.

The community support is good. Whenever we have an issue, they provide support to resolve it. If we need information about features, they help. Support is very good.

We use the solution as projects demand. We are a consulting company. Whatever the client has already purchased, we will use that. We work with all kinds of tools.

I don't have any details related to ROI.

I'm not exactly sure what the pricing is as it differs from client to client.

That said, LoadRunner is expensive and NeoLoad is less expensive whereas JMeter is free.

I'm familiar, for example, with LoadRunner. When you compare this with Load Runner, Load Runner is the best tool as it, number one, is very user-friendly when compared with the NeoLoad. It also supports the protocols. It is very mature, so people are very comfortable with it. The monitoring is good, and it has a lot of good features.

NeoLoad will not support all the protocols and it's not as user-friendly as LoadRunner. I use LoadRunner more than NeoLoad, and therefore am more comfortable with it.

I also am familiar with JMeter, which is an open-source option and therefore a free tool. In comparison, NeoLoad is a big tool and JMeter is quite small. With NeoLoad, you can get all kinds of reports, flexible reports and you can customize the reports as well. We can drill down on the reports if we want. That's not possible in JMeter.

NeoLoad is a good tool for banking or telecom applications. When compared with the LoadRunner, NeoLoad will support almost all necessary features including reporting. It is a good tool.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.

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.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing purposes, like load testing and stress testing.

Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter. The other valuable features of Tricentis NeoLoad include correlation, parameterization, load testing, and file parsing.

Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts. Tricentis needs to improve in this area, and the solution should run smoothly even if thousands of scripts are imported into it.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for one and a half years.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten for stability.

Around 10 to 12 users are using Tricentis NeoLoad in our organization.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup was easy.

Tricentis NeoLoad can be installed in ten minutes.

Tricentis NeoLoad is not an expensive solution, but it can be quite expensive if we need a license for load testing, depending on the organization level.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad's pricing a seven out of ten.

I would recommend Tricentis NeoLoad to other users.

Overall, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten.

We are primarily testing APIs but also testing the UI in some cases. In my last job, I also developed a plugin to enable NeoLoad to measure the end-user experience. If you have a modern web application, you usually only exchange JSON files between the client and the server. On the client side, you will render the JSON information to an HTML side or a dynamic DOM structure.

NeoLoad is used for testing the response time, which is not the same as the time it takes for the user to see the page. When the JSON document arrives on the client side, the client has to render the information. If you are considering the user experience from the end user's perspective, you are not interested in how long it takes to get the JSON. You want to know how long it will take to get the JSON and see the information on the page.

NeoLoad can't do this because it does not render the data from the server. The browser engine uses considerable RAM, so we cannot simulate many users simultaneously. We enabled NeoLoad to control a typical test. For example, a QF Test like Robot Framework tests the web UI. It starts and renders the application to measure how long it takes to see some special information on the page. 

These response times are fed into NeoLoad through a data exchange API, enabling us to visualize the actual user experience inside NeoLoad. That's NeoLoad's primary advantage. It has incredible APIs to implement special additional features or plugins you need for special applications.

NeoLoad helped us to transition from load testing to continuous performance measurement. It is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline. We implemented performance testing like you would have unit or functional tests. Every day, we get information if something happens in our application that affects the performance in a negative way.

NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application. 

Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in.

I began using NeoLoad when Neotys still owned the product. In total, I have about 13 years of experience working with the solution. 

Setting up NeoLoad is straightforward.

We deployed NeoLoad in-house. I already had experience with the solution from my previous job, so we didn't need Tricentis to send a consultant to help us. However, it's helpful to take advantage of their consultants if you need them. Tricentis has a network of freelancers, so it's easy to find a consultant near you, and you can usually find somebody who speaks your mother tongue.