We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Tricentis NeoLoad based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers seamless capturing of scripting and dynamic variables. Users are able to scale up quickly. A user favorite feature is the ability to generate loads from different geographies easily. Users recommend improving its integration with third-party tools. Currently, the integration process is complex and time-consuming.
Comparison Results: When selecting a Performance Testing Solution for an organization, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional finishes ahead of Tricentis NeoLoad. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional supports numerous protocols and applications and is very user-friendly. The solution is continually updating to ensure users get the best possible experience possible every time. Users consistently feel Tricentis NeoLoad should support more protocols to be more competitive with other solutions. They also related that testing could be a bit buggy at times, which adds to the solution being less desirable.
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 61 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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.