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

Tricentis Flood 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

Tricentis Flood
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis NeoLoad
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
65
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 1.6%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 18.2%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options
The solution is not in an optimal state. During POC, we analyzed tool is kept on upgrading. The patch deployment is happening in parallel, things that are working today are not working tomorrow. We eventually sorted it out with help of CSM. We integrated this tool with other software such as Azure client, but many times without a valid or visible reason, the connectivity was breaking. Improvement suggestions- The dashboard creation for the reporting needs to be easier. Currently, the solution does not support multiple script executions and we would like to see support for this.
RangaReddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible
I really didn't work on the cloud-based [version]. NeoLoad still has a cloud [offering], and it has pretty good integration. I heard that it's possible to integrate with JMeter as a tool as well. Maybe I could suggest: I wanted to know more about the integration with DevOps for performance testing. The automatic integration process – how can we run the scripts automatically within a CI/CD pipeline? So maybe I wanted to know how to integrate with DevOps, actually. I'm not sure whether that option is there with the tool or not. In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The stability is okay."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"The reporting features are great."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
 

Cons

"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"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."
"The product is expensive."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"If one person opens any script, another person won't be able to work on it simultaneously. If they can improve that feature, it would be helpful for everyone. I found that incorporating all the scripts into a single project was the challenging part. This is because we are working on different domains—I'm on one domain, and others are on another. We need to handle all these scripts cautiously."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
"The solution requires an annual license."
"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."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is much cheaper compared to other tools like LoadRunner."
"The pricing is fair for high-volume licensing."
"NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process."
"We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month."
"I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
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
Computer Software Company
23%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
53%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Tricentis Flood?
Tricentis Flood is the kind of versatile load and performance testing solution that my organization and I cannot help but recommend. It is recognized by companies across a wide variety of fields as...
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?
The solution is for continuous performance validation. The important thing is that it's not just for one load test and then forgotten. I try to integrate the performance tests into our pipelines, w...
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

Flood IO
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis Flood vs. Tricentis NeoLoad and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.