Galen Framework vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Galen Framework Logo
268 views|111 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
3,210 views|1,945 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Hashk Test
Eitan Gold
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."

More Galen Framework Pros →

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""The most valuable feature is stability.""The solution is very scalable.""It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE.""Integrates well with other products.""The most valuable features are the object repository.""It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry.""There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

Cons
"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."

More Galen Framework Cons →

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.""Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise.""I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.""In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable.""The tool could be a little easier.""With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine.""It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.""Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature.
    Top Answer:Galen Framework does not have any additional costs after the product is purchased.
    Top Answer:I haven't found any specific areas for modernization or improvement in Galen Framework yet. However, one observation I have made is about the auto-generation of Galen files. While this feature exists… more »
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Ranking
    24th
    Views
    268
    Comparisons
    111
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    376
    Rating
    8.0
    16th
    Views
    3,210
    Comparisons
    1,945
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    452
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    Galen Framework
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    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.

    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.
    Sample Customers
    Information Not Available
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Energy/Utilities Company12%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Healthcare Company10%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise8%
    Large Enterprise78%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Galen Framework is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive.

    See our list of best Functional 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.