We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"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."
"The stability is okay."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"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."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"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 product is expensive."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional 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.