We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Tricentis NeoLoad based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers seamless capturing of scripting and dynamic variables. Users are able to scale up quickly. A user favorite feature is the ability to generate loads from different geographies easily. Users recommend improving its integration with third-party tools. Currently, the integration process is complex and time-consuming.
Comparison Results: When selecting a Performance Testing Solution for an organization, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional finishes ahead of Tricentis NeoLoad. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional supports numerous protocols and applications and is very user-friendly. The solution is continually updating to ensure users get the best possible experience possible every time. Users consistently feel Tricentis NeoLoad should support more protocols to be more competitive with other solutions. They also related that testing could be a bit buggy at times, which adds to the solution being less desirable.
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"I didn't like much of the support that you get from the Tricentis group unless it was after it integrated with Tricentis; the support is not that good."
"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."
"The overall stability of the GUI should be improved. The GUI component is not stable enough. We have observed crashes several times."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"The product is expensive."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 60 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Offers good user interface, customization and I like how it way it correlates, monitors, and integrates with the user interface". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Tricentis NeoLoad report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
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.