We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"The user interface is fine."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"The stability is okay."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and RadView WebLOAD. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.