We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI Performance and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can scale."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"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."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"It is very slow sometimes."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"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 does not support Citrix-based applications."
"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."
ReadyAPI Performance is ranked 10th in Performance Testing Tools with 7 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 57 reviews. ReadyAPI Performance is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI Performance writes "Straightforward to install with the ability to add multiple assertions but the price is too high". 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". ReadyAPI Performance is most compared with SmartBear LoadNinja, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca. See our ReadyAPI Performance vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
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.