We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI 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."Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"The stability is okay."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". 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". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and Akamai CloudTest. See our ReadyAPI vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance 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.
