We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The stability is okay."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting 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 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."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"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 offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"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."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"This is not a cheap product."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
LoadRunner is the Micro Focus industry-standard software solution for application performance and load testing. LoadRunner stresses your entire system to isolate and identify potential client, network, and server bottlenecks, supporting performance testing of new technologies together with your existing, legacy applications.
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.
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 6 reviews. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional writes "Very good controller and a market leader, but not cost effective for small business". 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". Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, BlazeMeter and Silk Test, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis Flood, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud and Tricentis Tosca. See our Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional 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.