We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The most effective aspect is especially when I'm renaming all the scripting factors, basically the containers that I use."
"In my opinion, correlation of dynamic data is the most important advantage of this tool."
"I feel that the codeless part, the dynamic value capture part is quite easy in NeoLoad compared to other tools."
"It is a good source for load, stress and performance testing."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"The Frameworks feature is valuable. NeoLoad Web and the API are also valuable. It provides API support."
"The stability is okay."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"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."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
"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."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 62 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis NeoLoad is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis NeoLoad writes " Maintenance will be easy, pretty straightforward to learn and flexible". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BrowserStack and Perfecto, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis Flood. See our BlazeMeter 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.
