We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"We can book load generators."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"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."
"The stability is okay."
"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."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"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."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"I think better support for cloud-based load generators would help. For example, integrate with Amazon AWS so you can quickly spin up a load generator in the cloud, use it, spin it down."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"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."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and k6 Open Source. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.
