Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

The primary use case is for web applications and also SAP GUI—not SAP Applications but the UI version of SAP. For both these areas, it was working fine from the NeoLoad side.

The solution has been moved to the cloud version.

The first benefit is that it's quite cheaper. In the market there are mainly three tools which dominate: JMeter, LoadRunner, and NeoLoad. JMeter is open source. LoadRunner is quite expensive but has quite good features. NeoLoad is competitively quite cheaper compared to LoadRunner, and it provides great features, except in some areas. For instance, it doesn't allow some SAP applications. There are some areas where it's a little bit tough but other than that, it's quite good.

I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools. JMeter is a little bit tough, but LoadRunner gives you many features. For any codeless value, it is easy to detect from the NeoLoad side.

The SAP area could be improved. Not the GUI applications, SAP log-on, or something like that. We can see features and use NeoLoad properly in all the normal SAP log-on areas. I haven't tried it, but I have heard that Citrix-based applications don't work properly in the SAP application. In those types of different areas, there could be more protocol flexibility.

If there is a high number of users on NeoLoad—like around 5,000 or 6,000—it sometimes feels like that might be a bottleneck for the performance. That could be improved. With more users, there shouldn't be any issues from the tool side.

With scripting in a different browser, sometimes there are compatibility issues and it doesn't generate the script properly. Those types of crashes could be removed.

I was using NeoLoad six months ago because of some performance testing issues. Previous to using NeoLoad, we used LoadRunner.

The stability is good. It's quite reliable. Compared with a different browser, it sometimes creates problems and bugs. With the number of users increasing, sometimes the CPU and system where it was connected increases because of trade concurrency or something like that. That can be a little bit problematic. Other than that, things are fine.

Ongoing maintenance is not required. Whenever we have deployed the tools, if any version upgrade happens, we just check what the upgrade is exactly and someone on the deployment team connects the documents and everything. They check the document accordingly and update the version. It's not complicated.

We have roughly eight to nine performance testers, including the performance lead, the performance engineers, and the performance testers. Everyone will be running different projects. We'll be using the tool and running the performance testing based on the license and everything. The user count license will be ramping up the load. There are instances where multiple teams are using NeoLoad at the same time with different licenses. There has been no conflict error with each other, and we haven't seen a problem with different license things. Because we have two licenses, two tests can be executed parallel to each other.

The solution is scalable. After the number of users increases to 5,000 or 6,000, we have occasionally found problems. Below that, things are fine and the response times are good.

Tech support is okay. When we had 50 users, we reached out to the tech support team and within two to three days we received a response. The time took longer because it was a complicated problem. Response time is perfect.

I previously used LoadRunner. One of the reasons we had to switch to Neotys was because it was quite cheaper, but I still prefer LoadRunner to NeoLoad.

The deployment process is very straightforward. It's not complex. Only one associate deployed it, so not much effort was required.

There was no impact on the work that we used to do with performance testing when we moved to NeoLoad. Our normal performance testing was able to continue and it was going perfectly well. Return on investment was better because our deliverables were not getting impacted and it was cheaper, so return on investment increased a lot compared to LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is cheaper compared to other solutions. There are no additional licensing fees.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I wouldn't give it a 10 because there are some issues that need to be resolved from the tool side.

Before using the tool, you need to understand the product you are going to design, the different types of performance applications that you are going to do performance testing with, and whether or not NeoLoad supports it. If yes, then go ahead. Otherwise, I would say go back to LoadRunner because whatever the application is, LoadRunner will support it.

We used it for putting the load on the system. For example, for a big sale of an online marketplace, we created the scripts with performance testing tools such as Neotys and LoadRunner. We used to search for a product and add it to the cart. We used to capture all this traffic through these tools, and then, we used to do the real-time testing. So, we used to simulate the real-world user scenario. For example, if the company was expecting around 20,000 users on a specific day, we used to simulate the volume of 20,000 users on the application. 

The deployment model depends on a client's requirements and licensing. If we have a sufficient budget, we always go for the SaaS model. If we have a limitation of licensing, then we prefer to go for on-premises deployment. We usually need to get support from the admin team to set up everything. We used to take care of this aspect so that the support team will be able to do things on our behalf, such as setting up things in their environment.

We can quickly do scripting with NeoLoad, which makes it easier to give timelines and meet them. We can easily tell a client that within this much time, we can provide the end-to-end scripts, and we'll be able to do the execution along with all the activities. 

The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool.

We can easily do scripting with NeoLoad. We just have to understand the basic functionality to create a script. There is not that much effort that we have to put in. If I have to transfer knowledge to a new person or a beginner, he will also be able to pick it up quickly. 

LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols. With NeoLoad, we can go for the SAP technology, web-based HTTP, and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). If I have to simulate .NET application-based traffic, I won't be able to do that. So, protocol support is a limitation for NeoLoad. It should support more protocols.

One issue that we faced was that multiple users weren't able to work on the same application. We used to create multiple scripts based on the application and based on the projects, and then we used to integrate all of them in a single place. With NeoLoad, if you have to do this activity, to import a script, one user has to log off, and the second user has to copy the script and improve it, which is a time-consuming activity. These are the things that can block any further activity.

I have been working with this solution for 18 months.

I would rate it a nine out of 10 in terms of scalability. It is currently being used extensively. My organization is huge, and we have an employee count of more than 300,000. I wouldn't be able to provide the exact count, but for my project, 20 people are using this tool.

They usually clarify any queries or issues within three hours. They usually come back to us within three hours, which is as per our SLA, so that's good. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

Previously, we were using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. It is still in use. We haven't completely removed it. We switched because of the licensing and the time taken to create a script.

Neotys has taken some references from LoadRunner to create NeoLoad. So, in terms of functionality, NeoLoad and LoadRunner are quite the same.

The licensing cost of NeoLoad is lesser than LoadRunner. LoadRunner supports a higher number of protocols than NeoLoad. LoadRunner has more protocols for interacting with the application than NeoLoad. So, there are multiple things that we can simulate with LoadRunner, such as a desktop application or traffic for a banking domain.

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. So, we can provide a deadline for deploying a script. Time is money, so NeoLoad is better in terms of time.

It is straightforward. You don't need much understanding from the installation perspective. You just need to download the .exe and install it. You just need the license, and if you are going for the trial version, you just upload the license. If you are going for a business license, you just have to tie up with them and reach an agreement. That's it. 

It is a one-day thing. One day is enough to complete the installation and the setup.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, we usually have an admin team and a security team to put patches, etc.

Its licensing cost is very less.

If you are dealing only with web HTTP, you can definitely go ahead with this solution because time is money. 

I would rate NeoLoad an eight out of 10.

One of our use cases, it was Oracle E-Business Suite (Oracle EBS) application testing. The other one was a migration project for SAP HANA. In those two use cases, we needed to perform benchmarking and increase the coverage from an end-to-end point of view rather than just focusing on the API endpoints. 

We had to automate some of the Oracle form-specific transactions using NeoLoad, as we wanted to expand the coverage. So, I used NeoLoad as a hybrid solution alongside JMeter. Initially, the majority of the volume was on JMeter, but for the Oracle forms usage, which was low, we utilized a low-volume license from NeoLoad.

NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service.

NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area.

In future releases, I think they definitely need a full UI revamp because I believe it's built on Java technology, which feels a bit outdated. I would like to see that being improved. Additionally, increasing the coverage of the correlation templates capabilities would be very useful.

I've used it across around three projects mainly because we provide the best options for our clients. We combine open-source tools with commercial ones. So, in two cases, we encountered limitations with JMeter, mainly because it doesn't offer off-the-shelf support for Oracle forms and SAP GUI. That's when we decided to introduce NeoLoad.

It is a stable solution. When I worked with this tool, the main pain point was finding solutions. They have some good documentation, but it could be improved because sometimes the feature I was looking for was already there, but it took me a while to find it due to the documentation. 

So, NeoLoad can improve the documentation. Otherwise, the tool itself is stable. For our purposes, using it with around 100 users, it was very stable.

It is a scalable solution. I have integrated NeoLoad three times in your personal projects. I would say the main feature that might lag for enterprise usage is the capability to manage scripts in a team environment. You should be able to maintain scripts across multiple users through a source code repository. I'm not sure whether NeoLoad fully supports managing Java programming-like stuff with ease through a source code repository. That might be one aspect that could make it more qualified for enterprise use. 

Other than that,  NeoLoad can support enterprise needs, but I'm not sure about the team environment support with a source code repository. But as for the tool itself, because we are using it at kind of an enterprise level, not extensively, but it caters to most of the requirements.

The customer service and support were good. The initial support I received from them was world-class. They treated the issues as their own, and I would rate it eleven out of ten. It was that good.

Positive

The initial setup is not that complex unless you try to use it against a complex application like Oracle Forms. Oracle always tries to encourage the use of its own proprietary performance testing tool. They make it harder for the clients to use other tools, pushing them to buy their own. That's when the complexity arises. Other than that, it's straightforward and very intuitive. 

As long as you have a basic understanding, it's not that hard to get started. Personally, I came from a JMeter open-source background, so transitioning to NeoLoad wasn't too hard for me.

Initially, we faced some configuration issues, and the documentation was a little lacking, but the support team was very helpful in resolving the problems and guiding me through the setup. After that, using the tool became a walk in the park. However,  NeoLoad can still improve certain aspects.

NeoLoad has a cloud solution, mainly for executing tasks, but the tool itself is an on-premises one. The main issue with these cloud providers is that they should come up with CNA, which is the security certification. Otherwise, people, especially in the government sector, don't want to use them. They are very conservative about security in New Zealand, so they prefer everything to be on-premises mostly. Cloud solutions, like Platform as a Service, are not easily embraced there; they prefer on-premises solutions. So, everything is on-premises.

NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process. Earlier, it was hectic with people. Nowadays, licensing itself is a killer for most products.

For example, we purchased the Tableau license, and they had this on-premise licensing server setup, which is not working at all. So we had to ask them to give us a cloud license, and the discussion is still going on. They are trying to charge us additional stuff for Tableau. So our clients are now in a situation where they might abandon the product due to licensing issues, making it complex. People don't want to go through this. Really, it's easier to use the tool, but licensing itself takes a lot of unwanted complications.

So, with NeoLoad, we gave feedback and asked them to simplify the licensing model, and they came back with a better proposal.

If it weren't for the limitations in supporting Oracle forms and SAP GUI, I would never choose any other tool over JMeter. As for SAP GUI, we shouldn't fix anything unless it's broken, so I prefer sticking with JMeter. These commercial load test tools are insanely priced, especially the load test tools. 

That's why I appreciate that NeoLoad has come down with better, smaller licenses now. It's a good improvement. But I still think they are overpriced. This applies to all these tools, not just NeoLoad. If you look at them, they sometimes charge for virtual user hours, which I don't understand. When you buy a tool and a certain number of virtual users, you shouldn't be charged for hours of virtual use. Instead, you should be charged based on the number of virtual users, and the clients should be able to use it for the period they purchased the license.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. There are certain areas that need improvements in NeoLoad, like UI, correlation templates, and more.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad to test risk with API calls and make some small automation with the API calls using small Java scripts to take data from the file.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is SaaS but we use on-premise because we mostly work with the clients in its sensitive data that's required, like, only on-premise usage.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is Software as a Service. We prefer on-premise usage because we mostly work with clients dealing with sensitive data that requires on-premise usage.

The scalability, support protocols, and features of Tricentis NeoLoad made it easy and straightforward for us to complete the same tasks for our customers in the server cloud. We had to verify the certificate and attach the file within a protocol, which was a challenge in the server cloud.

From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest.

There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

The solution is stable. In the past six months, I have only encountered a few issues or bugs when the program crashed. I believe this may have been due to my own configuration settings.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is not very good.

I previously used Cisco SMARTnet but the generators for reports were difficult to configure on the backend so we switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more user-friendly.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed using the manual and did not integrate the solution with anything, such as the CID tool; it was only for small projects.

We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month. The cost is increasing each year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have three people using the solution in our organization.

As long as the organization's requirements are met, I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad.

We use the product for performance and load testing.

It's user-friendly, and everything is handy, with scripting load testing and everything in a single tool. In LoadRunner, we have to use the controller for all those things.

The protocol support area could be improved.

I've been using the solution for almost a week.

From my experience, I would say the stability is good. I've heard about certain limitations, but I haven't experienced any yet.

The solution is scalable for up to 2,000 users, as far as I know.

The solution is easy to set up. I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up.

I implemented it in-house on my own. It is open source. I downloaded it, and I was fine.

NeoLoad is expensive, but to my knowledge, it's better than LoadRunner. 

I don't have much experience with JMeter, so I don't know much about the differences between the products except that JMeter is open-source and NeoLoad is licenced, proprietary software.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate Tricentis NeoLoad as seven. 

We had three specific use cases we targeted Tricentis NeoLoad for. The first was for services, the second for terminal emulation mainframe applications, and the third was for the web.  We are looking for a more cost effective, efficient (low code) alternative to our current framework. 

Tricentis provides great documentation and collaboration.

The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was the low/no code for the web.

Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the range of codeless scripting such as with terminal emulation apps. 

We did a trial of Tricentis NeoLoad for approximately three months.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution.

We did not have any problems with the scalability of Tricentis NeoLoad but did not fully push the product.  We have approximately six or seven people involved in the POC. This included senior engineers and test developers.

We do not plan to expand the use of this solution at this time because it does not meet all of our needs.  Would consider a second look in the future.

The technical support from Tricentis NeoLoad is very helpful.

We have used Micro Focus LoadRunner. However, it is expensive and there appears to be a declining number of users.  Tricentis NeoLoad is more affordable and would better enable our pipeline but has fewer features.  We are not in a hurry to change but will continue to review products of interest and will continue monitoring Tricentis product roadmap.

The initial setup of Tricentis NeoLoad was straightforward. We had the installation instructions and the packages, and it took us approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation in-house.

Tricentis NeoLoad price is a benefit of using this tool, it is less expensive than some of the other solutions.

I would encourage others to take a look at this solution. It is a good solution and they maintain the technical expertise needed for success.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad an eight out of ten.

Tricentis NeoLoad was for a sports client of ours, and they had a web based application, and that application had a lot of APIs floating into a lot of sports applications. They were sports-based solutions, where you have people going to baseball sporting events, registering for the events, getting tickets, etc. That was the load that we tested with Tricentis NeoLoad.

The API side of Tricentis NeoLoad is good. The API support is much better with this solution, compared with the competition. Pricing for it is also more affordable than its competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner.

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.

What we want to see in this solution is how it integrates with the entire suite of Tricentis Solutions. Tricentis has a very successful product in Tricentis Tosca, and that is a product that is more focused on test automation. They have test management solutions. They have different management. Performance management or performance engineering within one solution would be a big winner for Tricentis NeoLoad, so this is an area for improvement for this solution. Otherwise, it is a really good tool.

I still need to take a closer look at the integration of Tricentis NeoLoad. I want to see how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now. This is a recent acquisition, so we want to see how these results come together: test automation, performance testing, etc., so that's what I'm looking for.

Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable.

We have used Tricentis NeoLoad and we find it scalable.

Tricentis acquired this product a year ago, so prior to that acquisition, the product was owned by an independent company, and their support was really good. We were supporting from India, and we had constant support from them. We never had any challenges with support for Tricentis NeoLoad.

We previously used Micro Focus LoadRunner, and switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because of the cost aspect, and we also found that Tricentis NeoLoad is also a good solution. It has very similar facilities like Micro Focus LoadRunner, but some of the features that are lacking there is more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which Micro Focus LoadRunner easily supports. The API side of Tricentis NeoLoad was good, so we were able to do really good work with the solution. We bought it recently.

Compared to Micro Focus LoadRunner, the setup for Tricentis NeoLoad is easy.

Pricing is always cheaper with Tricentis NeoLoad versus the very expensive Micro Focus LoadRunner.

Pricing is really less compared to Micro Focus LoadRunner, but once this product goes under the Tricentis umbrella, we don't know how much are they charging for it now. I have not looked into the most recent pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad.

I have experience with performance testing tools, particularly Micro Focus LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, and Tricentis NeoLoad. We also did a POC with Tricentis Flood, but that is now gone. We also did some work with Microsoft, but they have started removing it. Even Microsoft provides a solution for performance testing: Visual Studio.

I'm rating Tricentis NeoLoad seven out of ten, while Micro Focus LoadRunner I'm rating a five out of ten. I'm not giving Tricentis NeoLoad a score of ten because I want to see more out of it in terms of integration, particularly how it integrates with other Tricentis products.

There is a customized version for BlazeMeter, but it's a solution that cannot be compared with either Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad, because it is more of an open source solution, so you do not get support that's comparable with the support you get from paid solutions.

I am a senior performance engineer providing end-to-end performance testing. This involves gathering all non-functional requirements, creating a test plan, and creating a test strategy document. From there, we would start our benchmark and baseline testing based on the tool and protocol of the specific client in order to gather the scripting and the load testing. NeoLoad helps us identify bottlenecks and memory leaks which will help us increase the hardware capacity for the client and/or look at things on the software end including scalability, reliability, testing, and failure testing.

It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing.

Each of the main components - design, runtime, and results - are unique in their own way.

The design offers four components: user part (which is where we would be creating and enhancing scripts while implementing things like pacing, think time, and error handling concepts), servers (which is where we have the service testing of API testing), population (which is where we can plug scripts, create multiple populations, and perform bandwidth testing), and monitors (which is a server-side where we can add credentials to a database or server via SSH details).

Runtime allows us to create scenarios, populations, low variation policies, load generators, and custom load profiles. Other functions include graphs, templates, check alerts, set alerts, check response time, etc.

The results tab provides us with the NeoLoad report which we can segregate.

We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols.

Testing can also be a little tricky at times.

I have been using this tool for almost nine years.

This tool is easy to use. It requires little code implementation thanks to many predefined areas. I have not experienced any stability issues over the past nine years I have been using it.

I would rate the stability as five out of five. Right now we have about 500 users but in the past, we have had roughly 200k. They range from senior performance engineers to performance architects to performance test engineers.

Customer service is fantastic. I have been working with one customer service rep for the past nine years. 

Initial installation, registration, and setup were all straightforward and very easy, especially in comparison to other tools.

We were able to implement the tool with our in-house team.

We were able to set up per user basis licensing.

Newer additions such as NeoLoad SAP, Citrix, NeoLoad Web, etc. are excellent extensions with a broad range of new functions.

Organizations should be aware that there are limited videos available on the internet regarding NeoLoad so they should ensure that they receive proper training from the reseller/integrator upon purchase.