We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI 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."It's easy to learn how to use it."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"It's easy to implement."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The stability is okay."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"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."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"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."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". 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". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and k6 Open Source. See our ReadyAPI vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance 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.