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

ReadyAPI Performance 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

ReadyAPI Performance
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
8
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 August 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ReadyAPI Performance is 2.6%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 12.5%, down from 15.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis NeoLoad12.5%
ReadyAPI Performance2.6%
Other84.9%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Open-source and flexible but needs client-side scripting
It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS. Also, the APIs tested with SoapUI can be directly used, avoiding the need to create collections like in Postman. The client-side scripting, if incorporated, would provide a complete solution for performance tests. It can handle user distribution and transaction throughput distribution effectively.
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 can scale."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"It has helped improve productivity and functionality."
"Eventually, we enhanced the whole automation, and how it should get integrated with the hardware, or another tool like Jenkins for CI/CD automation."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"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."
"Outside of the obvious benefits of load testing, the data we get back and are able to provide at the executive level provide a level comfort in the given application at peak periods, and drives direction for future performance-oriented projects and goals."
"I have worked on various different performance testing tools, and I found NeoLoad very much within budget without compromising the quality of the product."
"It’s a very powerful tool which meets all our load and performance testing requirements, along with very sophisticated monitoring tools and reports."
"If I have to create a script in LoadRunner, it usually takes around six hours, but if I do the same thing in Neotys, it usually takes around one and a half hours to complete everything."
"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."
 

Cons

"It is very slow sometimes. If they could improve its performance, it would be really great for the users."
"It is very slow sometimes."
"The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"I haven't tried it, but I have heard that Citrix-based applications don't work properly in the SAP application."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"The ability to show transactions per second during the test run is missing; currently, we have to eyeball the TPS using the graph."
"LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"It needs improvements when handling binary values."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We find the cost to be affordable."
"This solution operates on a licence basis and the usage and cost varies according to the use case. It is more expensive if you include access to the learning center. On average it costs approximately 800 Euros."
"ReadyAPI Performance’s pricing is reasonable."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"The tool is not cheap."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"When compared to LoadRunner, NeoLoad has less costs. Compared to that, it's somehow affordable."
"NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 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
Financial Services Firm
20%
Retailer
10%
Performing Arts
8%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise51
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI Performance?
Load UI is mostly free, and the pricing for the pro version is very affordable compared to other tools like LoadRunner.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI Performance?
The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool.
What is your primary use case for ReadyAPI Performance?
The primary use case is to conduct server-side performance tests, scalability tests, and endurance tests using SoapUI and Load UI.
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

LoadUI NG Pro
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Mercedes-Benz, Adobe, Hilton Hotels, The Home Depot
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about ReadyAPI Performance vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.