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."The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The stability is okay."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"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 dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"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."
"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."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"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."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 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 " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". 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.