Tricentis NeoLoad Room for Improvement
LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols. With NeoLoad, we can go for the SAP technology, web-based HTTP, and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). If I have to simulate .NET application-based traffic, I won't be able to do that. So, protocol support is a limitation for NeoLoad. It should support more protocols.
One issue that we faced was that multiple users weren't able to work on the same application. We used to create multiple scripts based on the application and based on the projects, and then we used to integrate all of them in a single place. With NeoLoad, if you have to do this activity, to import a script, one user has to log off, and the second user has to copy the script and improve it, which is a time-consuming activity. These are the things that can block any further activity.View full review »
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.View full review »
Director, IT DevOps & Quality Engineering at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
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.View full review »
Performance Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
I would like to see support for auto-correlations.View full review »
Our issues with the solution were related to the license and the support. We had a technical issue related to our software and they weren't able to solve the problem.