We performed a comparison between Telerik Test Studio and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"It is easier to comprehend the analysis on its on-premise setup but not on its on-cloud setup."
"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."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
Telerik Test Studio is ranked 14th in Load Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 60 reviews. Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter. See our Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.