We performed a comparison between k6 Open Source 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."The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."
"The standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."
"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 overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"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."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
k6 Open Source is ranked 17th in Load Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 62 reviews. k6 Open Source is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of k6 Open Source writes "Offers good scalability and has the ability to integrate with various systems and services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". k6 Open Source is most compared with Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter and RadView WebLOAD, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and RadView WebLOAD.
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.