We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"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."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
Galen Framework is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
