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, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."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 most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"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."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"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."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"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 can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
"I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 61 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 " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter, 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.