We performed a comparison between RadView WebLOAD 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 most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"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."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"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."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our RadView WebLOAD 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.