Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 13.0%, down from 14.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 16.2%, up from 14.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.
RangaReddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible
I really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The reporting features are great."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"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."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"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."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
 

Cons

"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"If one person opens any script, another person won't be able to work on it simultaneously. If they can improve that feature, it would be helpful for everyone. I found that incorporating all the scripts into a single project was the challenging part. This is because we are working on different domains—I'm on one domain, and others are on another. We need to handle all these scripts cautiously."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"The solution requires an annual license."
"The tool is not cheap."
"NeoLoad is expensive, but to my knowledge, it's better than LoadRunner."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Educational Organization
53%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
Do you recommend Tricentis NeoLoad?
I highly recommend Tricentis NeoLoad for companies that are in need of a versatile load and performance testing tool. This relatively inexpensive solution is recognized by organizations like Oxford...
What is your primary use case for Neotys NeoLoad?
The solution is for continuous performance validation. The important thing is that it's not just for one load test and then forgotten. I try to integrate the performance tests into our pipelines, w...
What do you like most about Tricentis NeoLoad?
The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individu...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.