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, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools."The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"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."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"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 UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"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."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"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."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 58 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 "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, 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.