We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test 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."A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"Tricentis NeoLoad is quite easy to use as compared to JMeter."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The stability is okay."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"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 support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The UI lacks sufficient object rendering."
"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."
"We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 58 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". 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 Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
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.
