Tricentis NeoLoad Reviews

One of our use cases, it was Oracle E-Business Suite (Oracle EBS) application testing. The other one was a migration project for SAP HANA. In those two use cases, we needed to perform benchmarking and increase the coverage from an end-to-end point of view rather than just focusing on the API endpoints. 

We had to automate some of the Oracle form-specific transactions using NeoLoad, as we wanted to expand the coverage. So, I used NeoLoad as a hybrid solution alongside JMeter. Initially, the majority of the volume was on JMeter, but for the Oracle forms usage, which was low, we utilized a low-volume license from NeoLoad.

NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service.

NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area.

In future releases, I think they definitely need a full UI revamp because I believe it's built on Java technology, which feels a bit outdated. I would like to see that being improved. Additionally, increasing the coverage of the correlation templates capabilities would be very useful.

I've used it across around three projects mainly because we provide the best options for our clients. We combine open-source tools with commercial ones. So, in two cases, we encountered limitations with JMeter, mainly because it doesn't offer off-the-shelf support for Oracle forms and SAP GUI. That's when we decided to introduce NeoLoad.

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.

It is a scalable solution. I have integrated NeoLoad three times in your personal projects. I would say the main feature that might lag for enterprise usage is the capability to manage scripts in a team environment. You should be able to maintain scripts across multiple users through a source code repository. I'm not sure whether NeoLoad fully supports managing Java programming-like stuff with ease through a source code repository. That might be one aspect that could make it more qualified for enterprise use. 

Other than that,  NeoLoad can support enterprise needs, but I'm not sure about the team environment support with a source code repository. But as for the tool itself, because we are using it at kind of an enterprise level, not extensively, but it caters to most of the requirements.

The customer service and support were good. The initial support I received from them was world-class. They treated the issues as their own, and I would rate it eleven out of ten. It was that good.

Positive

The initial setup is not that complex unless you try to use it against a complex application like Oracle Forms. Oracle always tries to encourage the use of its own proprietary performance testing tool. They make it harder for the clients to use other tools, pushing them to buy their own. That's when the complexity arises. Other than that, it's straightforward and very intuitive. 

As long as you have a basic understanding, it's not that hard to get started. Personally, I came from a JMeter open-source background, so transitioning to NeoLoad wasn't too hard for me.

Initially, we faced some configuration issues, and the documentation was a little lacking, but the support team was very helpful in resolving the problems and guiding me through the setup. After that, using the tool became a walk in the park. However,  NeoLoad can still improve certain aspects.

NeoLoad has a cloud solution, mainly for executing tasks, but the tool itself is an on-premises one. The main issue with these cloud providers is that they should come up with CNA, which is the security certification. Otherwise, people, especially in the government sector, don't want to use them. They are very conservative about security in New Zealand, so they prefer everything to be on-premises mostly. Cloud solutions, like Platform as a Service, are not easily embraced there; they prefer on-premises solutions. So, everything is on-premises.

NeoLoad now has a much more flexible licensing process. Earlier, it was hectic with people. Nowadays, licensing itself is a killer for most products.

For example, we purchased the Tableau license, and they had this on-premise licensing server setup, which is not working at all. So we had to ask them to give us a cloud license, and the discussion is still going on. They are trying to charge us additional stuff for Tableau. So our clients are now in a situation where they might abandon the product due to licensing issues, making it complex. People don't want to go through this. Really, it's easier to use the tool, but licensing itself takes a lot of unwanted complications.

So, with NeoLoad, we gave feedback and asked them to simplify the licensing model, and they came back with a better proposal.

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.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. There are certain areas that need improvements in NeoLoad, like UI, correlation templates, and more.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad to test risk with API calls and make some small automation with the API calls using small Java scripts to take data from the file.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is SaaS but we use on-premise because we mostly work with the clients in its sensitive data that's required, like, only on-premise usage.

The solution is on-premises and we use a web dashboard which is Software as a Service. We prefer on-premise usage because we mostly work with clients dealing with sensitive data that requires on-premise usage.

The scalability, support protocols, and features of Tricentis NeoLoad made it easy and straightforward for us to complete the same tasks for our customers in the server cloud. We had to verify the certificate and attach the file within a protocol, which was a challenge in the server cloud.

From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest.

There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

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.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is not very good.

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.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deployed using the manual and did not integrate the solution with anything, such as the CID tool; it was only for small projects.

We used a 60-day trial with ten hours of work per month. The cost is increasing each year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have three people using the solution in our organization.

As long as the organization's requirements are met, I recommend Tricentis NeoLoad.

The support is very good. They have excellent community support.

The pricing is pretty good.

The stability is okay. 

There are still some glitches that they need to improve. We have given support feedback as well when we have some issues. They're very responsive and they do work to fix and improve issues. 

LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all.

I've used the solution for five years.

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.

While it's a good solution, I cannot speak to the scalability.

The community support is good. Whenever we have an issue, they provide support to resolve it. If we need information about features, they help. Support is very good.

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 don't have any details related to ROI.

I'm not exactly sure what the pricing is as it differs from client to client.

That said, LoadRunner is expensive and NeoLoad is less expensive whereas JMeter is free.

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.

NeoLoad is a good tool for banking or telecom applications. When compared with the LoadRunner, NeoLoad will support almost all necessary features including reporting. It is a good tool.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten.

• Easy correlations
• User-friendly GUI
• All components in one place

It helped us to improve the performance of all our applications.

Almost everything about NewLoad looks good, but I would like to have an indication of the variables for error messages appearing in the error tab. This would help us identify the users triggering the errors.

I've been using it for a year.

We've had no deployment issues.

There have been no issues with the stability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

In my experience, customer service is good.

The times that I've contacted technical support have been good experiences.

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

I wasn't involved, but my colleagues have said that the initial setup is straightforward.

An in-house team implemented NeoLoad for the current project.

Compared to HP LoadRunner, NeoLoad is cheaper.

It's a good tool to use if you are not willing to spend lots of money on HP LoadRunner licenses.

It's got a number of valuable features, the best of which I think are the mobile testing capabilities. It allows for load testing to make sure users can experience apps properly and checks for performance issues on the server side.

I particularly like Neoload’s ease of use, built in monitoring and their extensive library of wireless devices and protocols. We are able to simulate various wireless communication standards such as 3G, 4G etc. with ease.

A lot of our customers are now using mobile technology, so it's provided us the platform and ability to do mobile testing, which in turn enhances their experience in our store.

NeoLoad’s lack of support for a complete protocol suite is somewhat limiting. While they do offer some protocols (Kronos, GWT V2.6) that others do not, they are not a one stop shop for protocol testing. Neotys is considered a forward looking company in the software performance testing world and legacy protocols such as RTE, SAP GUI and RDP are not included in their suite of protocols. I would like to see a more comprehensive offering of protocols with future releases.

I've used it for a little over a year.

No, not at all. This was probably the easiest part of it. iIt’s working out really well as it is not taking up much resource and it was very easy to install.

We didn't encounter any issues with stability.

No, but to be fair, we don’t have a very large license right now, so this hasn’t become an issue for us. If I plan accordingly, this shouldn’t be an issue over time either.

The questions that we’ve had for them, they have answered very quickly. The team here is very skilled and we've managed to resolve any issues we've encountered ourselves. But when we have reached out to them they have been very responsive and they've solved our issues quickly.

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 did it in-house.

We certainly have an ROI, but it is hard to put in to numbers. If I don’t do the testing, how much sales do I lose? Millions of dollars. I can definitely tell you it would be significant.

They have been very responsive. They have even made an on-site visit. It’s been very good, they have had recent turnover but they are managing the transition well and they have even had a top team member reach out to us.

We use Tricentis NeoLoad for performance testing across our product lines.

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.

An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag.

We've been using Tricentis NeoLoad for about three years.

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

Tricentis NeoLoad is a scalable solution. It tests performance, so it has to be scalable.

Technical support for Tricentis NeoLoad is good. My company hasn't had many issues with support. If I were to rate support from one to five, my rating would be four out of five.

Tricentis NeoLoad is a solution that's easy to set up. Deploying it wouldn't take much time, as deployment could be completed within just a few days.

Pricing for Tricentis NeoLoad could be cheaper because, at the moment, it's expensive. For a year, the solution cost us a lot of money, in particular, more than $50,000.

I'm using the latest version of Tricentis NeoLoad.

In my company, two people from the performance testing department use Tricentis NeoLoad.

My rating for Tricentis NeoLoad is eight out of ten.

My advice to others looking to start using Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's a good product, and it would be money well spent.

My company is into product development, and it's a user or a customer of Tricentis NeoLoad.

We use this tool for load testing on web-browser based APIs.

The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to.

The price of this solution could be reduced to make it more competitive.

We would like to see more focus on support for other types of endpoints. Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols.

We have been using NeoLoad for about six months.

We have experienced no issues in terms of stability.

Scalability has not been a problem for what we use.

There are probably five users, including performance engineers and performance architects. It is only being used in one portfolio area right now, but we plan to expand our usage.

I don't have any experience with technical support.

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.

The initial setup is straightforward. Integration with our environment was seamless.

Maintenance is minimal and can be done with one person.

Licensing for NeoLoad is subscription-based.

My advice to anybody who is implementing NeoLoad is to first understand the technical requirements. Also, it is important to make sure that you have access to the endpoints that you want to load-test on.

Overall, it seems like a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product for performance and load testing.

It's user-friendly, and everything is handy, with scripting load testing and everything in a single tool. In LoadRunner, we have to use the controller for all those things.

The protocol support area could be improved.

I've been using the solution for almost a week.

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

The solution is scalable for up to 2,000 users, as far as I know.

The solution is easy to set up. I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up.

I implemented it in-house on my own. It is open source. I downloaded it, and I was fine.

NeoLoad is expensive, but to my knowledge, it's better than LoadRunner. 

I don't have much experience with JMeter, so I don't know much about the differences between the products except that JMeter is open-source and NeoLoad is licenced, proprietary software.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate Tricentis NeoLoad as seven.