It's too early to rate the scalability feature

Tricentis NeoLoad has a very good performance. Stability-wise, my team didn't experience any issues with it. Even the older versions of Tricentis NeoLoad didn't crash, so the tool is more than ninety percent stable.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten since some versions of the solution are not stable, and we saw a lot of issues with them in our company. If a person wants to work on the solution, then that person needs to know which version is stable and which is not. If a person doesn't know which version of the solution is stable, then that person may face a lot of errors when running certain executions.

This is a stable solution that provides good performance. 

The solution is extremely stable.

We faced issues with our on-cloud setup once or twice within the past year. Apart from that, the solution is relatively stable.

Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable.

The tool is stable. The initial versions had issues. With every new version, the product is improving and becoming more stable and robust. I rate the stability a seven to eight out of ten.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution.

I'd rate it a four out of ten in terms of stability. The GUI isn't stable enough.

This tool is easy to use. It requires little code implementation thanks to many predefined areas. I have not experienced any stability issues over the past nine years I have been using it.

There is no specific maximum project size defined (actual NeoLoad project size). This size is dependent on number of user journeys in the project, number of scenarios defined, number of graph templates stored, and number of results stored and so on. The bigger the project, the slower it opens in the tool (as expected) but many times can be excruciatingly slow. The other drawback is that the graphs and results may not get saved correctly. With the latest versions of NeoLoad, this issue has been significantly fixed but it can still occur at an undesirable moment as the optimum size of a project can only be determined by trial-and-error. Our experience has taught us to keep multiple backups of same project under two categories for such exigencies – the first category would contain backup of the project with previous results and graphs while the second one would have only the project (VUs and scenarios) but with previous execution results and graph templates removed.

The other issue we faced was with respect to results generation. If we need to abort a performance test that is in progress, all one has to do is click the stop button. However, if the stop button is clicked twice inadvertently or clicked twice because it still showed “consolidating results” message for eons after the first click, the results ultimately generated would get corrupted. Either the results would not show for all virtual users executed or would not get generated at all. The last time we checked, Neotys did not have a concrete solution to this problem even after analysing the execution logs and troubleshooting it. Their “solution” was to check our stop policy for the scenarios executed (to make sure all virtual users reached their ‘end’ state to generate results) and also to check if any antivirus or firewall was impeding result generation (an antivirus or firewall can prevent NeoLoad from writing results to your folder). From our side, our stop policies were fine and there was no antivirus/firewall to block NeoLoad so the solutions were not that useful. As a workaround, we would click just once to abort an execution run and wait for the results to be generated even if it took a while.

It is a stable solution. When I worked with this tool, the main pain point was finding solutions. They have some good documentation, but it could be improved because sometimes the feature I was looking for was already there, but it took me a while to find it due to the documentation. 

So, NeoLoad can improve the documentation. Otherwise, the tool itself is stable. For our purposes, using it with around 100 users, it was very stable.

The solution is stable. In the past six months, I have only encountered a few issues or bugs when the program crashed. I believe this may have been due to my own configuration settings.

We do occasionally deal with glitches. The previous versions are very stable. The newer versions have some glitches and sometimes it hangs, however, for the most part, it's okay.

There are issues around some protocol settings, like when we use encryption. When a person uses the banking application, the user and password are encrypted. We have issues with the encryption protocol. Lately, some settings may have changed and it seems to be working.

There have been no issues with the stability.

We didn't encounter any issues with stability.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a stable solution, and my company didn't have any problems with its stability.

We have experienced no issues in terms of stability.

From my experience, I would say the stability is good. I've heard about certain limitations, but I haven't experienced any yet.

There have been no stability issues.

We have found that the only stability issues, when using this solution, stem from the hardware in operation as opposed to the solution itself.

The stability is good. It's quite reliable. Compared with a different browser, it sometimes creates problems and bugs. With the number of users increasing, sometimes the CPU and system where it was connected increases because of trade concurrency or something like that. That can be a little bit problematic. Other than that, things are fine.

Ongoing maintenance is not required. Whenever we have deployed the tools, if any version upgrade happens, we just check what the upgrade is exactly and someone on the deployment team connects the documents and everything. They check the document accordingly and update the version. It's not complicated.

We have roughly eight to nine performance testers, including the performance lead, the performance engineers, and the performance testers. Everyone will be running different projects. We'll be using the tool and running the performance testing based on the license and everything. The user count license will be ramping up the load. There are instances where multiple teams are using NeoLoad at the same time with different licenses. There has been no conflict error with each other, and we haven't seen a problem with different license things. Because we have two licenses, two tests can be executed parallel to each other.

There have been no stability issues.

It's rare, but sometimes the application will shut down.

We have never experienced any isuses with stability.

I rate Tricentis NeoLoad a nine out of ten for stability.

No issues.

It's been 100% stable, which we are very happy about.

There were a couple of times during a load run where NeoLoad crashed out but they were due to issues with our virtual machines rather than NeoLoad.

A small number of times, when load testing huge projects with huge number (~10,000) of vUsers, we have seen that it completely froze. We had to recover from the previously saved version of the project.

None.

There have been no issues with the performance.

There have been no stability issues.

We haven't had any issues with stability up to this point.

At times we have had issues with load generator agent stability, but tuning the heap and documented network hacks greatly reduced this.

The stability of the solution has been good, or at least good enough for our purposes. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches so far. We also haven't had any crashes that would lead us to believe the solution isn't sound.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

We've had no stability issues.

We had scalability issues for loads over 1000 when using one Load Generator. Now we have increased the Load Generator to two.

I don't find this to be such a stable product because our requirements mean we need to be able to change the script on a monthly and sometimes weekly basis.

This is a stable solution from what I know. The frequency in which it is used depends on the project and the client.

None

In the beginning we had some issues with the number of tests, memory leaks, and the controller itself. We worked with them and they came out quickly. After some time now, it's pretty stable.