We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"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."
"Regular and strong support has to be made available by Tricentis during the solution's implementation and initial setup."
"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."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"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."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 57 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca.
We monitor all Functional 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.