We performed a comparison between Tricentis Flood and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools."The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"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."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"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."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 59 reviews. Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". 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". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.
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.