Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Galen Framework | 1.2% |
| Tricentis Tosca | 12.0% |
| BrowserStack | 6.8% |
| Other | 80.0% |
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Qt Squish | 2.9% |
| Tricentis Tosca | 13.4% |
| OpenText Functional Testing | 6.5% |
| Other | 77.2% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 9 |
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.
Take the complexity out of testing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and human-machine interfaces (HMIs) – even in the face of product evolution and safety-critical applications.
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.
