Certainly, I have worked on Loadrunner, JMeter, and Neoload in diverse projects, both SAP and non-SAP related.

In the present circumstances, I sought a tool with high reusability and an easy learning curve. Neoload emerged as the top choice in my evaluation.

We used a lot of tools before using Tricentis NeoLoad such as LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Test Manager, and Silk Performer, but those tools weren't as innovative as Tricentis NeoLoad.

We previously used LoadRunner but the cost was very high. 

We previously used Micro Focus LoadRunner, and switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because of the cost aspect, and we also found that Tricentis NeoLoad is also a good solution. It has very similar facilities like Micro Focus LoadRunner, but some of the features that are lacking there is more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which Micro Focus LoadRunner easily supports. The API side of Tricentis NeoLoad was good, so we were able to do really good work with the solution. We bought it recently.

We were using tools like LoadRunner along with NeoLoad. However, NeoLoad provided a better balance between the cost and benefits.

We have used Micro Focus LoadRunner. However, it is expensive and there appears to be a declining number of users.  Tricentis NeoLoad is more affordable and would better enable our pipeline but has fewer features.  We are not in a hurry to change but will continue to review products of interest and will continue monitoring Tricentis product roadmap.

We were using Micro Focus LoadRunner. We switched because of the organization's requirements.

We have used a host of other solutions such as LoadRunner, JMeter, WebLOAD, SOASTA, etc. While the choice of the solution depends on various factors such as open source vs commercial tool, protocols used, number of virtual users etc. NeoLoad comes up trumps on most factors which were needed for our clients namely:

1. Cost
2. Ease of deployment and scalability to test for high user loads (in the range of 100,000s users for large enterprise tests)
3. Ability to monitor performance at various levels of architecture
4. Graphical representation of results
5. Detailed comparison can be seen in the sheet attached

Previously, we were using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. It is still in use. We haven't completely removed it. We switched because of the licensing and the time taken to create a script.

Neotys has taken some references from LoadRunner to create NeoLoad. So, in terms of functionality, NeoLoad and LoadRunner are quite the same.

The licensing cost of NeoLoad is lesser than LoadRunner. LoadRunner supports a higher number of protocols than NeoLoad. LoadRunner has more protocols for interacting with the application than NeoLoad. So, there are multiple things that we can simulate with LoadRunner, such as a desktop application or traffic for a banking domain.

If I have to create a script in LoadRunner, it usually takes around six hours, but if I do the same thing in Neotys, it usually takes around one and a half hours to complete everything. So, we can provide a deadline for deploying a script. Time is money, so NeoLoad is better in terms of time.

I previously used Cisco SMARTnet but the generators for reports were difficult to configure on the backend so we switched to Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more user-friendly.

We use the solution as projects demand. We are a consulting company. Whatever the client has already purchased, we will use that. We work with all kinds of tools.

I worked with HP LoadRunner in my previous projects. I started using NeoLoad when I joined a project that was already utilizing it.

We haven’t completely switched over yet. We are also using HP Performance Center. We are starting to slowly migrate. The mobile capabilities and the cloud testing capabilities, HP are lacking. I think in the next three to five years we will totally migrate to Neoload.

We are currently using RadView WebLOAD in addition to Neotys NeoLoad. I am in the process of determining whether we should standardize on one tool, and choosing the one that makes the most sense, or continue to use both of them. 

The reason we started working with NeoLoad is that it was a carryover from another site that I was working on. I was looking to see if there was an opportunity.

The subscription pricing of NeoLoad is higher than RadView WebLOAD.

We were using HP Performance Center in-house for the previous six years. NeoLoad was tried as there was a need to test mobile applications with load generated from the cloud.

We work with JMeter and BlazeMeter, depending on the project requirements. 

NeoLoad is generally better than JMeter. 

I previously used LoadRunner. One of the reasons we had to switch to Neotys was because it was quite cheaper, but I still prefer LoadRunner to NeoLoad.

We previously used HP LoadRunner, and we switched due to cost, support competence, and the scripting interface.

We previously used HP LoadRunner, but it was not easy to create scripts for a flex application.

We previously, and still use JMeter for some projects, in addition to Neoload.

We started with NeoLoad.

I used HPE LoadRunner. I think that NeoLoad is more user-friendly.

I have used LoadRunner for web, web services and Siebel protocols, but running and licensing costs were very high.

LoadRunner. Cost effective and with almost same features that are required for our project.

I have used many performance testing tools. This tool goes one step further with easy integration with code analysis tools, server monitoring, the success of correlation studio and the advantages on the mobile side.

We used LoadRunner before we switched over to NeoLoad. LoadRunner is a powerful tool, but the learning curve is very high. It would not be feasible for our team because we have a lot of newcomers and a lot of applications to support. NeoLoad costs a fraction of what Load Runner costs.

We had a product in place and changed because Neotys had good support.

I had been using HP LoadRunner, Apache JMeter, SOASTA CloudTest, BlazeMeter and Rational Performance Tester. I chose this because when it comes to mobile HTTP load testing, Neoload helps script quicker.

Prior to NeoLoad, we weren’t using any automated tool for performance testing.

Traditionally we have been using HP LoadRunner, and were looking for a more cost effective solution for performance testing. JMeter was the initial choice, but the lack of support was a cause for concern.

No, not previously but we have demonstrated or performed proof of concepts of other products.

Yes, HP LoadRunner. We switched due various reasons including cost, ease of use and robust features.

We previously used Apache JMeter. We switched because test cases were easier to build on this solution.

I have worked on various different performance testing tools, and I found NeoLoad very much within budget without compromising the quality of the product.

This was our first performance testing tool.

I also have experience with Apache JMeter.

First I tried HP LoadRunner, but it didn't work.