We performed a comparison between Galen Framework, OpenText UFT One, and Selenium HQ 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."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"It is a stable solution."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I like its simplicity."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"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."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
