We performed a comparison between Tricentis NeoLoad and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools."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."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end 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 Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"The item that is different from all the other tools is that it's module based."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"It's a simple tool, particularly in terms of system testing. You can also convert and automate using Tricentis Tosca with ease."
"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."
"It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"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."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"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."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"Might have a learning curve, as it does not follow the traditional Record-Play functionality, but tests have to be built from requirements or Agile story cards."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"The integration with mobile testing could be useful."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
"The solution is expensive."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"First, Tricentis could improve Tosca's Linux scripting. We can automate Linux scripting, but there are a few commands that Tosca doesn't support. DVS support and the object identification mechanism could also be better."
Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Regression Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Eggplant Test.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.
