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.
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"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."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"The solution is quite stable."
"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 sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"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 solution's setup was straightforward."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"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."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"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."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"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."
"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."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
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 62 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 " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". 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.