No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Galen Framework
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
Galen Framework1.6%
Other89.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HH
Senior Engineer at Bosch
Scalable with strong reporting capabilities
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, functions don't seem to be available for automatically generating Galen values based on the specifications in the spec file, and this could be a potential improvement for Galen Framework.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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."
"In the market, not so many tools are able to check the layout with different screen resolutions as Galen can."
"Micro Focus' Unified Functional Testing tool is shaping up to return as a major contender in the test automation field."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix and when changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts and more than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
 

Cons

"When I use @Test(dataProvider), it causes a loop; the test result/report cannot accept the value of the data and show it in the test result/report."
"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."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"Cost is the biggest issue with UFT. It is not cheap."
"Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters."
"HP products sometimes have a lot of bugs to fix. You get in trouble sometimes because you want to adhere to some timelines, but then you find that the solution doesn't work."
"When a debug session ends, UFT forces the user back to the main script. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries."
"There is a gap in technical support which is also part of our review. We've raised issues in the past, which have not been fixed in two years."
"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.