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

Galen Framework vs Testim comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
21st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.5%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Testim3.5%
Galen Framework0.3%
Other96.2%
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.
Dheeraj Bavirisetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhancing automation skills, intuitive, and low-code
We use Testim to automate our testing scripts. I am part of the testing team for a corporate bank in the US, which is my client. We work on building their product, and Testim is used to automate the scripts since it is a low-code automation platform The feature I like most about Testim is the…

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 highly stable solution."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The product is easy to use."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."
"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
 

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."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The solution is not expensive."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
 

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 Testim?
The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?
I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.
What needs improvement with Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.