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

RadView WebLOAD vs Tricentis NeoLoad comparison

 

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
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
13th
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
7.5
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 10.7%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad10.7%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other85.8%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.
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

"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"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."
"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."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The stability is okay."
"When we tried the same application in NeoLoad, it worked like a charm without any hassle."
"The GUI based scripting is a huge time saver for us since we don’t have a dedicated performance team yet, as I can create scripts quickly and get tests going."
"When you compare this with LoadRunner, LoadRunner is the best tool as it, number one, is very user-friendly when compared with the NeoLoad."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"I particularly like Neoload’s ease of use, built in monitoring and their extensive library of wireless devices and protocols."
"The solution is a UI-based tool, so it's easy to use because we don't have to do actual recording with it. This makes it easier to use, and, in terms of speed, it's a bit faster than other tools when it comes to scripting."
 

Cons

"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"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."
"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."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
"They usually answer between 36 and 48 hours for non-critical issues, and with critical issues they hold your hand."
"The ability to show transactions per second during the test run is missing; currently, we have to eyeball the TPS using the graph."
"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."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier."
 

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."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"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."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
"The solution requires an annual license."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 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
14%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

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 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

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: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.