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

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
22nd
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
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.6%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 11.7%, down from 18.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad11.7%
OpenText Silk Performer1.6%
Other86.7%
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.
reviewer2732589 - PeerSpot reviewer
senior test engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Positive experience with seamless setup and responsive support but pricing and version compatibility need improvement
I'm not ready to share what areas of Tricentis NeoLoad have room for improvement now. 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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"The licensing model is very flexible which supports a broad range of budgets, from small projects to enterprise-level setups."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"It provides easy mobile performance testing solution for our customers."
"The pros outweigh the cons and so NeoLoad is highly recommended over its competitors."
"This tool goes one step further with easy integration with code analysis tools, server monitoring, the success of correlation studio and the advantages on the mobile side."
"It is a bit easier compared to our LoadRunner, and it is cheaper."
"It’s very easy for a person without any performance testing experience to use."
"The reporting features are great."
 

Cons

"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"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."
"The product is expensive."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"The bigger the project, the slower it opens in the tool (as expected) but many times can be excruciatingly slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"The licensing for this solution is renewable yearly, and covers all available features and technical support."
"The tool's pricing is somewhat higher than licensed tools like LoadRunner. The approximate cost is around $25,000. There are no additional charges for maintenance or support. Everything is included in the package we have."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
"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."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 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%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise49
 

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?
My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some solution on the basis of Tricentis NeoLoad. We tested both virtual infrastructu...
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 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, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.