We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"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 best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very 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 most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"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 SAP 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."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and RadView WebLOAD. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.