We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ 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."The solution is free to use."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"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 dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"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."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 59 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, 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.
