Galen Framework vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Galen Framework and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Galen Framework is ranked #22 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. Galen Framework holds a 0.1% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Galen Framework users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Galen Framework

Read 2 Galen Framework reviews

190 Views
60 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Galen Framework

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT One and Galen Framework are competing in the automated testing domain. OpenText UFT One holds an advantage with its comprehensive support offerings and extensive platform compatibility, whereas Galen Framework justifies its cost with unique visual testing features.

Features: OpenText UFT One includes extensive platform compatibility, support for various testing environments, and a strong emphasis on integration and end-to-end functional testing. Galen Framework is tailored for layout and visual testing, making it ideal for responsive design testing and unique in visual testing scenarios.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One offers a managed deployment process with extensive support services, ensuring a smoother implementation. Galen Framework, being open-source, allows flexibility in deployment but requires more technical expertise, with community-driven customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One involves higher upfront costs supported by extensive capabilities and support, leading to substantial ROI. Galen Framework presents a lower cost entry, resulting in a faster ROI for projects focused on UI and layout testing.

To learn more, read our detailed Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hashk Test

Senior Engineer at Bosch

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.

Read full review

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

Read full review

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."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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."

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

More OpenText UFT One cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"The tool's price is high."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The price is reasonable."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Galen Framework?

Galen Framework does not have any additional costs after the product is purchased.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Galen Framework?

See all answers

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2025

Download Galen Framework product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

Layout testing seemed always a complex task. Galen Framework offers a simple solution: test location of objects relatively to each other on page. Using a special syntax and comprehensive rules you can describe any layout you can imagine.

Galen Framework runs well in Selenium Grid. You can set up your tests to run in a cloud like Sauce Labs or BrowserStack so that you can even test your responsive websites on different mobile devices. Galen can run multiple tests in parallel which is also a nice time saver.

Galen Framework is designed with responsivness in mind. It is easy to set up a test for different browser sizes. Galen just opens a browser, resizes it to a defined size and then tests the page according to specifications.

Galen Framework

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Free Report: Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Galen Framework vs. OpenText UFT One report.

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.