Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
22nd
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
12th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HH
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
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

"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"We have UI controls in Infragistics logic that have been identified by OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, but those controls are not supported by TestComplete, which is what I find most valuable."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"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."
"The solution is very scalable."
 

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."
"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
 

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."
"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."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Educational Organization
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Galen Framework?
What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Galen Framework?
Galen Framework does not have any additional costs after the product is purchased.
What needs improvement with Galen Framework?
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 exis...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
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.
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...
 

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: August 2025.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.