We performed a comparison between Tricentis Flood and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The stability is okay."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The product is expensive."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.