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

SmartBear LoadNinja 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

SmartBear LoadNinja
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
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 SmartBear LoadNinja is 2.5%, up from 1.7% 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%
SmartBear LoadNinja2.5%
Other86.8%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kapil Tarka - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support
It's a new tool when I compare it with LoadViewer and HP LoadRunner. It needs time to mature. For example, it needs to improve concurrency. When you run a test suite, your scripts will generate some test data. If we are running a banking application and then we are running a full end-to-end suite, there are many actions that need testing. There's a lot of data getting generated. There should be a variable that we can store for later in our later test cases. We need data management and dynamic data generation to be able to capture the data which is generated.
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

"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"But for now, we are happy with what have been using."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"The most powerful aspect is the ease of use."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The reporting features are great."
"NeoLoad is more user-friendly than HPE LoadRunner."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"It helped us to improve the performance of all our applications."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
 

Cons

"It needs time to mature."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"It needs time to mature."
"Certainly, the cost could be reduced. It requires attention. Clients have expressed dissatisfaction with the price."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
"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."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"The ability to show transactions per second during the test run is missing; currently, we have to eyeball the TPS using the graph."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Certainly, the cost could be reduced."
"Licence cost is very attractive compared to other vendor tools and also there are many license alternatives."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"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."
"Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner."
"It is cheaper than other solutions."
"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."
"The solution requires an annual license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 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
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
University
10%
Healthcare Company
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
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

SmartBear LoadComplete
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Falafel Software
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear LoadNinja vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: May 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.