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."The solution is free to use."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"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."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"It needs improvement with post-production."
"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."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"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."
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.