We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individual loads and data directly within NeoLoad without needing third-party tools."
"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."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"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."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"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."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional 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.