Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

This solution is mostly used by our customers to monitor the performance of the networks or of the server site.

We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience.

We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution.

We have been working with this solution for 11 years.

We have found that the only stability issues, when using this solution, stem from the hardware in operation as opposed to the solution itself.

This is a fairly scalable solution.

We have found this solution to be very time saving for our customers, who report optimal resource usage since its implementation.

The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support.

We would rate this solution a six 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 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 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.

We were customers of NeoLoad and I'm an automation test engineer and team lead.

I do like this tool, it's very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good. It's also simple for anyone who doesn't have a technical or coding background. I liked that we could record the script and use it multiple times. 

Our issues with the solution were related to the license and the support. We had a technical issue related to our software and they weren't able to solve the problem. 

We used this solution for 18 months. 

I don't find this to be such a stable product because our requirements mean we need to be able to change the script on a monthly and sometimes weekly basis.

The support is not great - they don't respond in a timely way. 

We purchased a two-year license but broke the contract after 18 months. 

We're currently looking for a NeoLoad alternative. I prefer dynamic tools because we should be able to change the script and NeoLoad didn't allow us to do that. I'm looking for a tool that will allow for a weekly or monthly script change and provide us with the ability to update whatever has been recorded. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10.