We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"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 individual loads and data directly within NeoLoad without needing third-party tools."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"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."
"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."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"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."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional 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.