We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"A lot of things are valuable. It is free. It has a lot of features, such as report generation and integration with CI/CD, which makes it very competitive with the other paid solutions available in the market. It is a good solution."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"It is open source as well as relatively extendable. It allows us to extend and add additional functionality and features. Its deployment is also very easy."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"The reports and analysis tools are very good. They are the solution's most valuable features."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The stability is okay."
"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."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"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 flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"The solution needs to improve reporting. Currently, there is not enough automation involved with the feature. For example, there should be an automatic way of saving reports."
"It's not easy to get the data from one place or to do customizations."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"The reporting is not very good."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"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."
"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."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"I was using the free version of the software."
"This is an open-source product."
"When comparing the price with Load Runner, and if the cost is an issue then JMeter is a better choice"
"I haven't looked into it. Most of our projects are nonprofit or grant-based. Everything is public commons, so we don't really have to worry about that so much."
"In terms of open-source adoption, it is completely free."
"We are using the free version, and if required, we can easily switch to the other version."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
Apache JMeter may be used to test performance both on static and dynamic resources, Web dynamic applications. It can be used to simulate a heavy load on a server, group of servers, network or object to test its strength or to analyze overall performance under different load types.
The NeoLoad load and performance testing tool for web and mobile apps realistically simulates user activity and monitors infrastructure behavior to eliminate bottlenecks. It covers all performance testing from component and automated tests to system-wide hybrid-cloud load tests.
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 16 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 6 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "Easy to learn, and free to use but could be more user-friendly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, ReadyAPI and Katalon Studio, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis Flood, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud and RadView WebLOAD. See our Apache JMeter vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
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.