We performed a comparison between k6 Open Source 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."The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."
"The standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"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."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The stability is okay."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."
"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."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"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."
"We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
k6 Open Source is ranked 17th in Load Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 62 reviews. k6 Open Source is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of k6 Open Source writes "Offers good scalability and has the ability to integrate with various systems and services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". k6 Open Source is most compared with Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter and RadView WebLOAD, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and RadView WebLOAD.
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.