Alternatives to Flood by Tricentis
Real Browser Performance Testing
with LoadView

Quickly set up and run load tests for all your web pages, applications, APIs, servers, and streaming media.

Managed Network

Load injectors are managed for you. No additional setup or account necessary.

Script User Scenarios

Multi-step scripting. Support for more than 40 desktop/mobile browsers and devices.


Easily spin up load injectors from a few hunderd users to thousands with a few clicks.

Performance Metrics

Uncover performance bottlenecks critical for capacity planning.

Identify bottlenecks, ensure scalability, and validate performance. 

Quickly and easily load and stress test your websites, web-apps, and APIs from the cloud! 

Features Flood Other Cloud Providers LoadView
Free Trial. $20 in testing credits
No Steep Learning Curve
No Requirements for Programming/Scripting Knowledge
Script Recorder
Easy, Straightforward Pricing
Multiple User Scenarios and Test Types

Are you a current Flood user searching for a more cost-effective load/stress testing solution  This article takes a look at all the features of LoadView and how it compares to Flood. Read on to see what makes LoadView a great alternative to Flood.


Creating Scripts: Flood vs. LoadView

When it comes to creating scripts, Flood gives users many options to choose from, depending on their environment or programming language experience. Users can create protocol-level load tests using a variety of open-source tools, such as JMeter, Gatling, and Selenium.

Another option a Flood user has at their disposal is Test Builder. Test Builder is essentially a more user-friendly version of JMeter that can be used for protocol-level testing, such as GET and POST requests. Users also have the option to add specific headers or URL parameters.

Lastly, Flood users have another option, called Element, which is a browser-based tool that was developed by Tricentis. This allows users to run scripts within a real browser, specifically, Chrome. The scripts need to be built separately in JavaScript prior to uploading and launching your load test, so you need to understand the JavaScript language in order to do so. The scripts that are created with any of these open-source and proprietary tools can then be launched in Flood, which handles the infrastructure, execution, and reporting of the load tests.

On the other hand, LoadView utilizes the EveryStep Web Recorder. The recorder is a web-based scripting tool that records the transactions and steps within you pages and web applications in real browsers.  The tool supports a myriad of technologies, browsers, and devices, such as Chrome, Internet Explorer, Android, iPhone, and more. The recorder supports frameworks and technologies used to build dynamic applications, like JavaScript, AJAX, HTML5, and more.  With the EveryStep Web Recorder, all you need to do is navigate a page or application like any user would do and the tool records every step of the transaction. And if you need to edit the script for any reason after recording, you are able to do so easily. Users can also have availability to additional features, such as setting delays, network filters, and context parameters, among others. These features are important for simulating real user action. For example, you can simulate different users logging in, visitors searching for different products, or dynamic URL testing by specifying dynamic variables.

Unlike some of the programming language support options with Flood, The EveryStep Web Recorder is easy to use and there is no scripting experience required.


Executing Load Tests: Flood vs. LoadView

Within Flood, everything is grouped at a high level under a specific Project, which contains all of your tests. Under the project level, you have streams. Streams are essentially the actions within the test, such as browsing or logging into a page. Finally, under streams are the floods. A flood is simply an execution of one of your test scenarios. A flood is created every time you run a load test. Users can have multiple floods under the same stream and several streams under the same project, etc.

All Flood load tests are executed on from 15 different regional grid nodes (AWS and/or Azure).  Depending on your plan, users may be limited to the number of nodes that can be used per grid (a grid can have up to 90 nodes).

With a paid subscription plan, the number of grids and nodes is not limited, however, the number of node hours consumed is limited to one hour of testing per node. This can be split up any way the user would like. For example, one node could be setup to run for one hour, while two other nodes are setup for 30 minutes each, and so on. The recommendation for maximum number of users per node and scripting tool is 1,000 users for JMeter and Gatling and 50 users for Element. Their free trial includes five node hours, with the one restriction being that users can only use one node at a time.

Conversely, the LoadView platform sets limits and hours, dependent on the type of plan and test simulation. LoadView users have the flexibility to run different types of user simulations, depending on their need.

  • Protocol-based (HTTP/S)

Requests with concurrent users generating HTTP/S requests (GET/POST) to web server.

  • Real Browser-based

Great for load testing web-apps and simulating users performing specific actions within those applications.

LoadView uses Amazon Web Services (AWS) load injectors located in 15+ regions around the world.  There is no need to have your own cloud account as everything is managed through the LoadView platform.

Additionally, once you’ve finalized your test scenario, you can take your load test one step further by choosing the type of load curve for your situation – Load Step Curve, Goal-based Curve, or Dynamic Adjustable Curve – based on the needs for your test.


Analyzing Tests: Flood vs. LoadView

Test results within in both platforms are relatively similar. Both allow users to collect and monitor metrics, such transaction rates, response times, network throughput, and errors, in real-time. If necessary, users can drill-down deeper into the statistics behind individual elements. The reports are user-friendly and intuitive, and you can review all results via your browser. LoadView keeps previous test results, so you can use them to benchmark against future tests. Additionally, users are given the option of sending the performance results to managers or stakeholders by utilizing a unique, private URL.

LoadView Pricing and Free Trial

Our free trial includes $20 in credits to get you started with your tests. Our subscription-based plans begin at $199 per month, and any unused virtual user minutes and load injector hours roll over from one month to the next. Or choosse our On-demand plan to run tests whenever you need to throughout the year. 

LoadView Professional Services  

For teams looking to outsource their performance testing, we also offer Professional Services.  Our performance engineeres can assist with any part of the testing process, depending on your specific needs and resources.  Our goal is to have you and your teams running the performance tests, interpreting data, and fine tuning your system without our team’s involvement. 

Flood Free Trial and Pricing

Flood offers a free trial that allows users to use one node for the first five hours, which can be good for customers looking to get a baseline for their test. There are a couple of different deployment options with Flood. Users can choose from a Demand or Hosted option.

Demand Plans

The Demand plan allows customers to run load tests, on-demand, without having to allocate any hardware or software. With any of the Demand plans, node hours can be used one of two ways. For example, if you chose 50 node hours, you can simulate 50,000 users for 1 hour 1,000 users for 50 hours. All testing is executed at the protocol level. If you’re looking to utilize real browsers in your testing, similar to what LoadView provides “out of the box,” you must use a separate platform, called Flood Element, which allows you to use a single hour of real instances in Google Chrome.

20 Node Hours

  • $149 per month ($99 with annual commitment)

50 Node Hours

  • $299 per month ($240 with annual commitment)

100 Node Hours

  • $499 per month ($450 with annual commitment)

200 Node Hours

  • $700 per month ($600 with annual commitment)

300 Node Hours

  • $999 per month ($900 with annual commitment)

400 Node Hours

  • $1,322 per month ($1,200 with annual commitment)

500 Node Hours

  • $1,500 per month ($1,250 with annual commitment)

700 Node Hours

  • $2,100 per month ($1,750 with annual commitment)

1,000 Node Hours

  • $2,250 per month ($2,000 with annual commitment)


Hosted Plans

Hosted plans are the preferred method if you already have your own AWS or Azure cloud accounts. With this option, users don’t have to worry about keeping track of node hours. Both plans offer month-to-month or annual pricing configurations and are broken out as follows:

20 Node Hours

  • $199 per month ($160 with annual commitment)

50 Node Hours

  • $399 per month ($350 with annual commitment)

100 Node Hours

  • $750 per month ($650 with annual commitment)

200 Node Hours

  • $1,400 per month ($1,200 with annual commitment)

300 Node Hours

  • $1,950 per month ($1,650 with annual commitment)

400 Node Hours

  • $2,600 per month ($2,200 with annual commitment)

500 Node Hours

  • $3,000 per month ($2,500 with annual commitment)

700 Node Hours

  • $4,200 per month ($3,500 with annual commitment)

1,000 Node Hours

  • $5,500 per month ($4,500 with annual commitment)

Users looking for more Enterprise-level options can contact Tricentis directly to find a plan that meets their needs.


Conclusion: Flood vs. LoadView

LoadView and Flood are both great load testing platforms. Both solutions give you the ability to test your web-based applications and services with as many real-world virtual users as you need. They also provide you with the necessary performance metrics that you need for capacity planning. However, the Flood platform is primarily geared towards utilizing open-source tools, which are great for more complex environments, but the downside is that it requires users to have the necessary knowledge upfront in order to be able to create scripts.

Additionally, those scripts can only really be used for protocol-based tests, which aren’t suitable when trying to simulate the actual user experience. When it comes to ease of use, flexibility, and point and click scripting, the LoadView platform shines. Additionally, LoadView has great enterprise-level features, such as goal-based and dynamic adjustable curve tests, and pricing options to fit any size organization.

Try LoadView Today!

and get $20 in Free Testing Credits!