"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"The stability is okay."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
Earn 20 points
WebLOAD is an enterprise scale load testing product that powers the most demanding performance experts in the world. WebLOAD supports hundreds of technologies. DevOps teams will feel right at home with WebLOAD's flexible built-in scripting capabilities.
The NeoLoad load and performance testing tool for web and mobile apps realistically simulates user activity and monitors infrastructure behavior to eliminate bottlenecks. It covers all performance testing from component and automated tests to system-wide hybrid-cloud load tests.
RadView WebLOAD is ranked 13th in Performance Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 8 reviews. RadView WebLOAD is rated 5.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "Good reporting, but the developers need the ability to write their own code ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Good licensing cost, user-friendly, and makes it easy and quick to create scripts". RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Selenium HQ and Micro Focus UFT Mobile, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Flood, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca. See our RadView WebLOAD vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.