We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"The stability is good."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within Runscope would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"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."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BrowserStack and Sauce Labs, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis Flood. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
