We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"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."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI 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 most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based."
"Its licensing cost is very less."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
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.
TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobile, web and desktop applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.
Neotys NeoLoad is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 5 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 3rd in Test Automation Tools with 14 reviews. Neotys NeoLoad is rated 8.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Neotys NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Speed, configuration consistency, and accuracy of tests with fantastic results". Neotys NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Flood and BlazeMeter, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, Micro Focus UFT One and Appium.
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.