We performed a comparison between Galen Framework 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."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"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."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
Galen Framework is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText Silk Test.
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.