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

RadView WebLOAD vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 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

RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 14.1%, up from 11.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad14.1%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other82.4%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Vadim Urintsov - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Tester / Quality Assurance Analyst at Bitnami
An excellent solution for graph testing on programming software
Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software The information provided via the solution and the dashboard is valuable. Additionally, it's interesting as you can view inside information integrated and see the WebLOAD with APM. There is no analytical dashboard…
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

"The solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"Customer service is excellent; they're very responsive and willing to work extra hours, and in the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS."
"The ability to conceptualize the experience for users is great, the price as the bang for your buck is good, the user interface is quite user friendly, and the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify."
"NeoLoad is more user-friendly than HPE LoadRunner."
"The best features of this tool, which I value the most in Tricentis NeoLoad, are the convenient predefined set of metrics for different platforms, and it was most easy to set up and start running."
"I do like this tool, it's very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"A complex LoadRunner script could take days to create, but the same script in NeoLoad could be created within hours."
"It provides easy mobile performance testing solution for our customers."
"The most valuable feature that we've found useful is that NeoLoad provides a variety of bandwidths."
"Overall, it seems like a good product."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
 

Cons

"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"Well there’s one issue when I have five or six scripts-- you have to set up different percentages and the number of connections and users, no matter how I tweak it seems that when I have one of the load scripts in the mix set, a percentage of less than 8-10%, there’s a probability that it won’t run at all."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Reporting needs to be better. I would like to see information such as Send Time, Receive Time, SSL, Waiting Time, and Blocking Time in my response times."
"The rendering of heavyweighted applications can't be scripted via NeoLoad, so we have to use LoadRunner as an extra client."
"The only issue that I had was with network virtualization on load generators installed on Windows Server 2008 R2."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the range of codeless scripting such as with terminal emulation apps."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
"We purchased a license for two years."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
"Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
"Licence cost is very attractive compared to other vendor tools and also there are many license alternatives."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"The licensing cost is less compared to other licensing performance testing tools."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 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
Performing Arts
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
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

No data available
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about RadView WebLOAD vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.