We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Galen Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.
Layout testing seemed always a complex task. Galen Framework offers a simple solution: test location of objects relatively to each other on page. Using a special syntax and comprehensive rules you can describe any layout you can imagine.
Galen Framework runs well in Selenium Grid. You can set up your tests to run in a cloud like Sauce Labs or BrowserStack so that you can even test your responsive websites on different mobile devices. Galen can run multiple tests in parallel which is also a nice time saver.
Galen Framework is designed with responsivness in mind. It is easy to set up a test for different browser sizes. Galen just opens a browser, resizes it to a defined size and then tests the page according to specifications.
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Galen Framework is ranked 34th in Functional Testing Tools. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 8.6, while Galen Framework is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Live testing gives us the ability to identify potential issues on different browsers and devices proving to be a very useful tool". On the other hand, CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Tricentis Tosca, Bitbar and Sauce Labs, whereas Galen Framework is most compared with froglogic Squish, Selenium HQ and BrowserStack.
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.