We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It is a good automation tool."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individual loads and data directly within NeoLoad without needing third-party tools."
"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."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"We would like to see the addition of one-to-one integrations with the Tricentis Tosca suite to this product, which would then cover the end-to-end needs of our customers who are looking for a single vendor solution."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
"Some users may find NeoLoad too technical, while other users may prefer a scripting language instead of a UI with figures and forms they have to fill in."
"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."
"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."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional 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.