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 extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"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."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"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 product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"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."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good."
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 Perfecto, 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.