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."One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"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 TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The solution can scale."
"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"
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The stability is okay."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"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."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"Some improvements can be made to the solution's user interface"
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"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."
"The product is expensive."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 40 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.