We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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 solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"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."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 57 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis Flood. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.