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."The solution is free to use."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"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."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"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."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"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."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"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."
"The debugging part of Tricentis NeoLoad takes time."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"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."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 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.