Compare LoadNinja and WebLOAD 
- Users report that WebLOAD excels in stress testing with a score of 9.1, while LoadNinja follows closely with a score of 8.9. Reviewers mention that WebLOAD's ability to simulate extreme cases is particularly strong, scoring 9.4 compared to LoadNinja's 8.1, making it a preferred choice for enterprises needing rigorous testing.
- Reviewers say that WebLOAD offers a wider variety of testing options, scoring 9.4 in test variety, which users appreciate for its flexibility in handling different testing scenarios. In contrast, LoadNinja scores 8.5, indicating it may not cater to as many diverse testing needs.
- Users on G2 highlight that WebLOAD's reporting capabilities are robust, with a score of 8.9, allowing for detailed insights into test results. LoadNinja, while still competent, scores 8.3, leading some users to feel that its reporting features could be more comprehensive.
- G2 users mention that WebLOAD's quality of support is rated highly at 9.3, with many reviewers praising the responsiveness and expertise of the support team. LoadNinja, however, has a lower support rating of 8.1, with some users expressing concerns about the availability of timely assistance.
- Reviewers mention that WebLOAD has been a good partner in business, scoring 9.0 in this area, indicating strong customer satisfaction and reliability. LoadNinja's score in this regard is not specified, but the lower overall ratings suggest it may not have the same level of user trust.
- Users report that WebLOAD's product direction is viewed positively with a score of 8.3, indicating confidence in its future development. LoadNinja, however, has a higher score of 8.8, suggesting that users feel more optimistic about its ongoing enhancements and feature updates.
First of all it is very realistic, we have learned how to use it very fast, it has very intuitive GUI flow so one can start load testing very fast without additional knowledge. It has pretty all functionality that is needed for not-so-special daily testing...
Loadninja interface is often slow and buggy features and functionality are shown but grayed out or non-functional - support usually states that the features are now deprecated or in development Price is very expensive since almost any test requires...
Simple UI, Cost effective, Protocol Support, Integration, and Installation
First of all it is very realistic, we have learned how to use it very fast, it has very intuitive GUI flow so one can start load testing very fast without additional knowledge. It has pretty all functionality that is needed for not-so-special daily testing...
Simple UI, Cost effective, Protocol Support, Integration, and Installation
Loadninja interface is often slow and buggy features and functionality are shown but grayed out or non-functional - support usually states that the features are now deprecated or in development Price is very expensive since almost any test requires...
