We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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 most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"With the tool, it is possible to compare NeoLoad test results against baseline and benchmark, and we can make the comparisons in the same window."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"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."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"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."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"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."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.
