No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Silk Performer vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 13.4%, down from 17.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad13.4%
OpenText Silk Performer1.5%
Other85.1%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Principal Software Architect at OpenText
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.
AnantJoshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director Intelligent Automation at Truglobal
Performance testing has delivered diverse global retail loads and generates clear diagnostic reports
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the load generation, I find that the cost increases, especially when I want to generate a load for a global customer with different loads in different regions.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We haven't used Silk on any project where it hasn't been able to support whatever we have needed."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"Customer support is excellent, with a very quick turn around time for any question asked."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"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."
"When we tried the same application in NeoLoad, it worked like a charm without any hassle."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"NeoLoad is more user-friendly than HPE LoadRunner."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
 

Cons

"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
"When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The price could be more friendly, and it was impossible to continue using the same version of Tricentis NeoLoad, as we were forced to move to the next version. Sometimes there were compatibility problems, and that was a major problem with backward compatibility issues."
"It would be nice if this could be cheaper."
"We purchased a two-year license but broke the contract after 18 months."
"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."
"LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"The rendering of heavyweighted applications can't be scripted via NeoLoad, so we have to use LoadRunner as an extra client."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The solution requires an annual license."
"Licence cost is very attractive compared to other vendor tools and also there are many license alternatives."
"The licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
"I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise51
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
Tricentis NeoLoad use cases were for retail, specifically a US based retail customer.
What needs improvement with Tricentis NeoLoad?
I did not notice any weak points or downsides in Tricentis NeoLoad except for the cost. Everything else is good with the tool. When I consider that service customers have to pay the cost for the lo...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: August 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.