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.
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"It helped in achieving the testing of on-premise applications, as well as cloud-based applications, without much difficulty."
"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."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"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."
"The product is expensive."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
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 59 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.
