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."The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"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."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"The stability is okay."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"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 is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 62 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.