Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

We use the tool to do POC level activity.

I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time.

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.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool’s setup is straightforward. The installation takes a couple of hours to complete.

I would rate the solution an eight-point five out of ten.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing across our product lines.

My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution.

I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly.

The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag.

We've been using Tricentis NeoLoad for about three years.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution, and my company didn't have any problems with its stability.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable solution. It tests performance, so it has to be scalable.

Technical support for Tricentis NeoLoad is good. My company hasn't had many issues with support. If I were to rate support from one to five, my rating would be four out of five.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a solution that's easy to set up. Deploying it wouldn't take much time, as deployment could be completed within just a few days.

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.

I'm using the latest version of Tricentis NeoLoad.

In my company, two people from the performance testing department use Tricentis NeoLoad.

My rating for Tricentis NeoLoad is eight out of ten.

My advice to others looking to start using Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's a good product, and it would be money well spent.

My company is into product development, and it's a user or a customer of Tricentis NeoLoad.

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. 

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 use this tool for load testing on web-browser based APIs.

The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to.

The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive.

We would like to see more focus on support for other types of endpoints. Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols.

We have been using NeoLoad for about six months.

We have experienced no issues in terms of stability.

Scalability has not been a problem for what we use.

There are probably five users, including performance engineers and performance architects. It is only being used in one portfolio area right now, but we plan to expand our usage.

I don't have any experience with technical support.

We are currently using RadView WebLOAD in addition to Neotys NeoLoad. I am in the process of determining whether we should standardize on one tool, and choosing the one that makes the most sense, or continue to use both of them. 

The reason we started working with NeoLoad is that it was a carryover from another site that I was working on. I was looking to see if there was an opportunity.

The subscription pricing of NeoLoad is higher than RadView WebLOAD.

The initial setup is straightforward. Integration with our environment was seamless.

Maintenance is minimal and can be done with one person.

Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based.

My advice to anybody who is implementing NeoLoad is to first understand the technical requirements. Also, it is important to make sure that you have access to the endpoints that you want to load-test on.

Overall, it seems like a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing purposes, like load testing and stress testing.

Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter. The other valuable features of Tricentis NeoLoad include correlation, parameterization, load testing, and file parsing.

Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts. Tricentis needs to improve in this area, and the solution should run smoothly even if thousands of scripts are imported into it.

I have been using Tricentis NeoLoad for one and a half years.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten for stability.

Around 10 to 12 users are using Tricentis NeoLoad in our organization.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup was easy.

Tricentis NeoLoad can be installed in ten minutes.

Tricentis NeoLoad is not an expensive solution, but it can be quite expensive if we need a license for load testing, depending on the organization level.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad's pricing a seven out of ten.

I would recommend Tricentis NeoLoad to other users.

Overall, I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten.

We are primarily testing APIs but also testing the UI in some cases. In my last job, I also developed a plugin to enable NeoLoad to measure the end-user experience. If you have a modern web application, you usually only exchange JSON files between the client and the server. On the client side, you will render the JSON information to an HTML side or a dynamic DOM structure.

NeoLoad is used for testing the response time, which is not the same as the time it takes for the user to see the page. When the JSON document arrives on the client side, the client has to render the information. If you are considering the user experience from the end user's perspective, you are not interested in how long it takes to get the JSON. You want to know how long it will take to get the JSON and see the information on the page.

NeoLoad can't do this because it does not render the data from the server. The browser engine uses considerable RAM, so we cannot simulate many users simultaneously. We enabled NeoLoad to control a typical test. For example, a QF Test like Robot Framework tests the web UI. It starts and renders the application to measure how long it takes to see some special information on the page. 

These response times are fed into NeoLoad through a data exchange API, enabling us to visualize the actual user experience inside NeoLoad. That's NeoLoad's primary advantage. It has incredible APIs to implement special additional features or plugins you need for special applications.

NeoLoad helped us to transition from load testing to continuous performance measurement. It is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline. We implemented performance testing like you would have unit or functional tests. Every day, we get information if something happens in our application that affects the performance in a negative way.

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. 

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.

I began using NeoLoad when Neotys still owned the product. In total, I have about 13 years of experience working with the solution. 

Setting up NeoLoad is straightforward.

We deployed NeoLoad in-house. I already had experience with the solution from my previous job, so we didn't need Tricentis to send a consultant to help us. However, it's helpful to take advantage of their consultants if you need them. Tricentis has a network of freelancers, so it's easy to find a consultant near you, and you can usually find somebody who speaks your mother tongue.

The support is very good. They have excellent community support.

The pricing is pretty good.

The stability is okay. 

There are still some glitches that they need to improve. We have given support feedback as well when we have some issues. They're very responsive and they do work to fix and improve issues. 

LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all.

I've used the solution for five years.

We do occasionally deal with glitches. The previous versions are very stable. The newer versions have some glitches and sometimes it hangs, however, for the most part, it's okay.

There are issues around some protocol settings, like when we use encryption. When a person uses the banking application, the user and password are encrypted. We have issues with the encryption protocol. Lately, some settings may have changed and it seems to be working.

While it's a good solution, I cannot speak to the scalability.

The community support is good. Whenever we have an issue, they provide support to resolve it. If we need information about features, they help. Support is very good.

We use the solution as projects demand. We are a consulting company. Whatever the client has already purchased, we will use that. We work with all kinds of tools.

I don't have any details related to ROI.

I'm not exactly sure what the pricing is as it differs from client to client.

That said, LoadRunner is expensive and NeoLoad is less expensive whereas JMeter is free.

I'm familiar, for example, with LoadRunner. When you compare this with Load Runner, Load Runner is the best tool as it, number one, is very user-friendly when compared with the NeoLoad. It also supports the protocols. It is very mature, so people are very comfortable with it. The monitoring is good, and it has a lot of good features.

NeoLoad will not support all the protocols and it's not as user-friendly as LoadRunner. I use LoadRunner more than NeoLoad, and therefore am more comfortable with it.

I also am familiar with JMeter, which is an open-source option and therefore a free tool. In comparison, NeoLoad is a big tool and JMeter is quite small. With NeoLoad, you can get all kinds of reports, flexible reports and you can customize the reports as well. We can drill down on the reports if we want. That's not possible in JMeter.

NeoLoad is a good tool for banking or telecom applications. When compared with the LoadRunner, NeoLoad will support almost all necessary features including reporting. It is a good tool.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.