We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Performer and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its integration with third-party tools because, at the moment, it's a bit complicated. Per Tricentis, you can integrate Tricentis NeoLoad with different monitoring tools such as Dynatrace and New Relic, but that requires installing an additional tool to make that integration happen, rather than being able to pull in Tricentis NeoLoad from the different tools and servers, and make integration simpler and easier."
"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."
"We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"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 crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
OpenText Silk Performer is ranked 11th in Load Testing Tools with 1 review while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 60 reviews. OpenText Silk Performer is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Performer writes "Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". OpenText Silk Performer is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and Apache JMeter, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.
