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."It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"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."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"The stability is okay."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"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."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"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."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 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, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter 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.