We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There don't seem to be functions available for automatically generating Galen values based on the specifications in the spec file, and this could be a potential improvement for Galen Framework."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
Galen Framework is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
