Yes, I evaluated below tools:

1. Performance Centre cloud

2. J meter

3. Akamai Cloud Test 

4. Inhouse performance solution 

We evaluated Compuware and other tools, but Tricentis NeoLoad had a better UI.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated LoadRunner and JMeter.

I have experience with performance testing tools, particularly Micro Focus LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, and Tricentis NeoLoad. We also did a POC with Tricentis Flood, but that is now gone. We also did some work with Microsoft, but they have started removing it. Even Microsoft provides a solution for performance testing: Visual Studio.

We evaluated open-source tools such as Scala and JMeter. We went for NeoLoad because of the collaboration feature, which isn't there in Scala and JMeter. Another reason was the enterprise support, which doesn't come with open-source tools.

If it weren't for the limitations in supporting Oracle forms and SAP GUI, I would never choose any other tool over JMeter. As for SAP GUI, we shouldn't fix anything unless it's broken, so I prefer sticking with JMeter. These commercial load test tools are insanely priced, especially the load test tools. 

That's why I appreciate that NeoLoad has come down with better, smaller licenses now. It's a good improvement. But I still think they are overpriced. This applies to all these tools, not just NeoLoad. If you look at them, they sometimes charge for virtual user hours, which I don't understand. When you buy a tool and a certain number of virtual users, you shouldn't be charged for hours of virtual use. Instead, you should be charged based on the number of virtual users, and the clients should be able to use it for the period they purchased the license.

I'm familiar, for example, with LoadRunner. When you compare this with Load Runner, Load Runner is the best tool as it, number one, is very user-friendly when compared with the NeoLoad. It also supports the protocols. It is very mature, so people are very comfortable with it. The monitoring is good, and it has a lot of good features.

NeoLoad will not support all the protocols and it's not as user-friendly as LoadRunner. I use LoadRunner more than NeoLoad, and therefore am more comfortable with it.

I also am familiar with JMeter, which is an open-source option and therefore a free tool. In comparison, NeoLoad is a big tool and JMeter is quite small. With NeoLoad, you can get all kinds of reports, flexible reports and you can customize the reports as well. We can drill down on the reports if we want. That's not possible in JMeter.

• HP LoadRunner
• JMeter
• Appvance
• Rational Performance Tester

We looked at HP LoadRunner, SmartBear LoadComplete, and Appvance.

We looked at JMeter and Webload.

One of our goals was to find a platform that would have the functionalities that we were used to while incorporating in other ones. ProLoad was a competitor, and one other (can't make out name).

We wanted it to support agile and devops, while being able to upgrade to a number of releases over the course of a day, so it was a fit.

We tried JMeter, but due to its support (which we found subpar), we had to switch to NeoLoad.

We looked at JMeter, but NeoLoad had what we needed. We were using LoadRunner for six years and then we replaced it with NeoLoad.

JMeter. Figured that it would not be suitable tool for our project and requirements.

We were struggling to find a good load testing tool that could support Siebel. NeoLoad was one which ticked the correct boxes.

We evaluated HP LoadRunner. I’ve used it before and it is/was the industry standard tool.

We evaluated other products of similar nature as well other team member’s prior experiences with similar products.

We looked at some others, but NeoLoad really stood out in the end.