PROJECT PRESENTATION Prof: Daniel Amyot Presented By ANVESH
ALUWALA GURPREET SINGH DHADDA Evaluation of Load Testing Tools
WebLOAD Professional Vs NeoLoad 3.1
Slide 2
Agenda Business context Our Goal in the project Load Testing
Methodology List of Criteria Description to WebLOAD Professional
& NeoLoad 3.1 Final Recommendation
Slide 3
Our Business Context Company: weexcel Inc. Developers: 25 QA
Testers: 4 The company planned to launch an web application and
they want to Load Test the application before deployment The
company needs a recommendation of the tool that meets the maximum
goals set by the company
Slide 4
Our one and only Goal Recommend the tool that best serves the
organizations purpose to test their web applications before
deployment
Slide 5
Intro to Load Testing Although both Load Testing and
Performance Testing seem similar, their goals are different. Load
testing operates at a predefined load level, usually the highest
load that the system can accept while still functioning properly.
On the other hand, performance testing uses load testing techniques
and tools for measurement and benchmarking purposes and uses
various load levels. We can generally call the Load Testing as the
subset of Performance testing.
Slide 6
Load Testing Load Tests determine the applications behavior
under load, up to and including its limits (not just at its
limits). Load tests specifically refer to the load size (number of
concurrent users) and related values.
Slide 7
Methodology We compare two tools: WebLOAD Professional &
NeoLoad 3.1 We use an E-Commerce website for creating the test
process. It will be a quantitative analysis. Each criteria will
have a specific range. Both the tools will be marked for each
criteria within the specific range. The tool which scores high
overall will be recommended.
Slide 8
Criteria Minimal criteria Scope for automation. Detect
performance bottlenecks. Display response times under variable
loads. Must support HTTP/S, SOAP and TCP/IP Internet protocols. MS
Windows compatible.
Slide 9
Criteria(Contd.) Good to have criteria Cost and License. Ease
of use. Steadiness of the tool. Documentation available for the
tool. Variety of reports provided by the tool. Support scripting
for scenario generation. Customer support. Reputation of the tool
in market.
Slide 10
Range for each criteria CRITERIARANGE Scope for automation0-10
Detect performance bottlenecks0-10 Display response times under
variable loads0-10 Must support HTTP/S, SOAP and TCP/IP Internet
protocols0-10 MS Windows compatible0-10 Cost and License0-5 Ease of
use0-10 Steadiness of the tool0-5 Quality of reports provided by
the tool0-10 Support scripting for scenario generation0-5 Customer
support0-5 Documentation available for the tool.0-5 Reputation of
the tool in market0-5 TOTAL100
Slide 11
WebLOAD Professional This tool is from the family of Radview
Testing process: Creating and editing scripts Creating and running
Load Tests Analyzing Load Test results Scripts can be added in
JavaScript language Also provides script correlation, script
validations and script parameterization
Slide 12
ScreenshotsCreating agenda
Slide 13
ScreenshotsRunning Test
Slide 14
ScreenshotsAnalyzing results
Slide 15
NeoLoad 3.1 This tool is from Neotys Testing process: Record
-Capture a scenario Design -Graphical interface -Defining dynamic
parameters -Defining logical options(delay, loops, try catch, etc)
-Checking the virtual users
Slide 16
NeoLoad 3.1 Testing process(contd.) Monitors -Create monitoring
machine(select OS, Databases and Web EJB Architecture) -Select
performance counters System(CPU User, CPU system, CPU idle, etc.)
Memory(memory used, memory free) Runtime -Select load generator
-Select duration Analyze results
Slide 17
Screenshotscreating scenario
Slide 18
Screenshots...runtime
Slide 19
Screenshotsanalysis
Slide 20
Marking of tools on each criteria Scope for automation: The
test cases should run automatically after defined time intervals.
WebLOAD: This tool supports automation of test cases NeoLoad: Even
this tool supports automation of running test cases by specifying
the time interval in the duration policy Detect performance
bottlenecks: should specify an alert message when the system is in
critical stage WebLOAD: Gives a detail report of the errors
NeoLoad: Gives a quick alert message and details regarding that
error
Slide 21
Marking of tools on each criteria Display response times under
variable loads WebLOAD: The reports generated specify clearly the
response times for different loads NeoLoad: We can track the
response times at every instance during the run time of the test
process Must support HTTP/S, SOAP and TCP/IP Internet protocols
WebLOAD: Wide range of protocols are supported NeoLoad: Wide range
of protocols are supported
Slide 22
Marking of tools on each criteria MS Windows compatible: The
tool must mainly support MS Windows OS but support for other
platforms is considered as an advantage. WebLOAD: Supports MS
Windows OS NeoLoad: Supports Linux, Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX and
VMWare other than MS Windows OS Cost and License: The competitive
price matters a lot in evaluation. WebLOAD: Cost is over $5000 for
100 virtual users NeoLoad: Cost is cheaper when compared to
WebLOAD
Slide 23
Marking of tools on each criteria Ease of use: Usability is
important. The tool should be easy to learn for the testers.
WebLOAD: Little tricky to create the script parameters and
validations NeoLoad: Self-explanatory and easy to use Steadiness of
the tool: The tool should not crash or hang up in between. WebLOAD:
Little bit slow in runtime NeoLoad: Runs perfect on threshold loads
too
Slide 24
Marking of tools on each criteria Quality of reports provided
by the tool: At the end, the reports on the test should be precise
and of variety of representation types WebLOAD: Need not be a
performance analyst in order to examine the test results. NeoLoad:
Provides enough charts to represent the results efficiently Support
scripting for scenario generation WebLOAD: This supports scripting
NeoLoad: This is only GUI based
Slide 25
Marking of tools on each criteria Customer support WebLOAD: The
Radview team provides excellent service NeoLoad: The Neotys team
are equally helpful Documentation for the tool WebLOAD: Precise
documentation available NeoLoad: Well formatted documentation is
available Reputation of the tool in market WebLOAD: Captured 3% of
the market share NeoLoad: New tool, but good competitor for
WebLOAD.
Slide 26
Final marking of the tools CRITERIARANGEWebLOADNeoLoad Scope
for automation0-1010 Detect performance bottlenecks0-1010 Display
response times under variable loads0-10910 Must support HTTP/S,
SOAP and TCP/IP Internet protocols 0-1010 MS Windows
compatible0-10910 Cost and License0-535 Ease of use0-10710
Steadiness of the tool0-535 Quality of reports provided by the
tool0-1010 Support scripting for scenario generation0-550 Customer
support0-555 Documentation available for the tool.0-544 Reputation
of the tool in market0-554 TOTAL1009093
Slide 27
Final Recommendation After the quantitative analysis of both
the tools we recommend NeoLoad 3.1 and the detailed results and
evaluation to choose this tool will be explained in the final
report.