We performed a comparison between Tricentis Flood and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"What I found best in Tricentis NeoLoad is that it's better with scripting and load test execution in the load testing environment compared to its competitors. The tool has a better design, scenarios, and model, which I find helpful. I also found the Result Manager a fascinating part of Tricentis NeoLoad because of the way it collates results and presents reports. The straightforward implementation of Tricentis NeoLoad, including ease of use, is also valuable to my team."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The best feature of the solution is that we can utilize the Tosca scripts for NeoLoad execution."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"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."
"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 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."
"We would like NeoLoad to be able to support more protocols. Testing can also be a little tricky at times."
"While importing the scripts from backup it should not create the new variables because it has created some issues for us."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 62 reviews. Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". Tricentis Flood is most compared with BlazeMeter, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.