- Home
- ...
- Software Testing Tools
- Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional
- Tricentis Neoload
- Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional-vs-Tricentis Neoload
Compare OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Tricentis Neoload 
- Users report that OpenText LoadRunner Professional excels in test variety, scoring 9.3, which allows for a wide range of testing scenarios, while Tricentis Neoload closely follows with a score of 9.4, indicating strong capabilities in this area as well.
- Reviewers mention that Tricentis Neoload shines in stress testing, achieving a score of 9.5, which is significantly higher than OpenText LoadRunner Professional's score of 8.3, suggesting that Neoload may provide more robust options for handling high-load situations.
- G2 users highlight the ease of use of Tricentis Neoload, with a score of 9.4 compared to OpenText LoadRunner Professional's 8.3, indicating that Neoload may be more user-friendly for teams looking to implement performance testing quickly.
- Users on G2 report that OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers superior customization options, scoring 9.7, which allows teams to tailor their testing environments more effectively than Tricentis Neoload, which also performs well but does not match this level of flexibility.
- Reviewers say that Tricentis Neoload provides better quality of support, with a score of 8.5 compared to OpenText LoadRunner Professional's 7.6, suggesting that users may find more responsive assistance when using Neoload.
- Users report that both products have strong reporting capabilities, with Tricentis Neoload scoring 9.6 and OpenText LoadRunner Professional at 9.0, but Neoload's higher score indicates a slight edge in delivering actionable insights from test results.
The multiple protocols that it supports and the ease with which Test scripts can be recorded, Tests run and Results analyzed for concurrent users . Easy integration with HP suite of tools.
Support can be lacking and unresponsive not an open schedule. In constant need of upgrades/patching. Support for old versions is lacking and constantly pushed in different directions when the tool is not meeting the needs. The inability to run custom...
As compared to JMeter , We found it more easy to record the performance scripts and play back. This tool has a very simple user interface that lets us record and execute the script locally first before we can try it executing in NeoLoad Web portal. We can...
The only thing that I felt was lagging was that the application was too heavy, and there were some compatibility issues with computers having less RAM.
The multiple protocols that it supports and the ease with which Test scripts can be recorded, Tests run and Results analyzed for concurrent users . Easy integration with HP suite of tools.
As compared to JMeter , We found it more easy to record the performance scripts and play back. This tool has a very simple user interface that lets us record and execute the script locally first before we can try it executing in NeoLoad Web portal. We can...
Support can be lacking and unresponsive not an open schedule. In constant need of upgrades/patching. Support for old versions is lacking and constantly pushed in different directions when the tool is not meeting the needs. The inability to run custom...
The only thing that I felt was lagging was that the application was too heavy, and there were some compatibility issues with computers having less RAM.
