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."We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The solution is free to use."
"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."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"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."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"The product is expensive."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"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."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". 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.