We performed a comparison between Eggplant Performance 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."We find the solution stable and scalable."
"It is not a conventional test automation tool. It uses optical character recognition (OCR) to identify objects. It makes it the best in the class."
"We don't have a big team of people that can watch the dials and check that everything is okay. We're doing a lot of the monitoring of our website and our product at the side of the desk. We need a solution that does a lot for us, and that's what Eggplant does."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"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 Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"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."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"I'd like to see the ability to integrate the user experience through device forms like AWS device forms or source labs."
"Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"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."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"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."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
Eggplant Performance is ranked 15th in Performance Testing Tools with 4 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Eggplant Performance is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Eggplant Performance writes "Offers unique object identification, ideal for UI layer regression automation but limited scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Eggplant Performance is most compared with Appium, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and Tricentis Tosca. See our Eggplant Performance vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance 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.