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

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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
31st
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
8th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
Galen Framework1.5%
Other94.8%
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In the market, not so many tools are able to check the layout with different screen resolutions as Galen can."
"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The ability to evaluate live applications in our production environment for unusual behavior and determine problem areas and solutions is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
 

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."
"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."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"The issue with all the integration is that it can become very costly and expensive and we'd like to be able to recommend one single tool that will do it all."
"Improvement is still needed for stability and performance."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"It's newer so it doesn't support as many technologies which makes the investment a little bit harder for us to absorb more licenses than we currently have or to justify buying any more licenses than we currently have because it only supports a certain subset of our customers."
"This solution is not scalable at all."
"I would rate technical support a one out of five."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.