We compared Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad both excel in load testing capabilities and robust reporting features. Apache JMeter offers more extensive customization options and protocol support, while Tricentis NeoLoad is praised for its ease of use and superior customer service. Users suggest that Apache JMeter could improve its user interface and documentation, while Tricentis NeoLoad users desire better integration options and software stability.
Features: The valuable features of Apache JMeter include its versatility in load testing, robust reports and graphs for analysis, excellent support for various protocols, a user-friendly interface, and extensive customization options. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad offers ease of use, intuitive interface, excellent support for load testing and performance monitoring, advanced reporting capabilities, seamless integration with other tools, and efficient handling of complex and large-scale tests.
Pricing and ROI: According to user feedback, the setup cost for Apache JMeter is not mentioned, indicating a smooth and hassle-free process. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad also has a straightforward setup and the pricing is considered reasonable. Both products have easy-to-understand licensing processes., Apache JMeter demonstrated positive outcomes for return on investment, including improved testing processes and cost savings. Tricentis NeoLoad also provided a favorable return on investment, adding value to businesses.
Room for Improvement: In terms of room for improvement, Apache JMeter could benefit from enhancements in its user interface and documentation, particularly for beginners. On the other hand, Tricentis NeoLoad could use improvements in various areas including documentation, user interface design, integration options, and software stability.
Deployment and customer support: Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad have different user reviews regarding the duration required for establishing a new tech solution. Apache JMeter users mentioned three months for deployment and a week for setup, while Tricentis NeoLoad users mentioned three months for deployment and one week for setup or one week for both deployment and setup., Apache JMeter's customer service is praised for being helpful, reliable, and responsive. Customers appreciate their knowledge and prompt responses. Tricentis NeoLoad's customer service is commended for its promptness, professionalism, and efficient query resolution. Users are satisfied with the level of assistance received.
The summary above is based on 66 interviews we conducted recently with Apache JMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"We find the load testing feature valuable."
"When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"Apache JMeter is quite flexible."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"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."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"Both scalability and stability could be improved in Apache JMeter."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"The initial setup is complex and needs to be upgraded."
"If JMeter could integrate with the EPM solution, it would be great. It could also be improved by offering more integrations for security. For example, most applications are secure with OpenID Connect protocols."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"There were some features that were lacking in Tricentis NeoLoad, e.g. those were more into Citrix and other complicated protocols, which were supported easily by a competitor: Micro Focus LoadRunner. We also need to look into how it integrates with other Tricentis products, because Tricentis did not have a good performance testing tool until now."
"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."
"LoadRunner offers a full protocol, whereas, with this product, only a few of the protocols are supported - not all."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"The solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca, BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood. See our Apache JMeter 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.