No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
31st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Galen Framework1.6%
Other89.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HH
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.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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."
"In the market, not so many tools are able to check the layout with different screen resolutions as Galen can."
"The fact that UFT One covers multiple technologies helps in terms of end-to-end scenarios."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications, the solution would be a good thing to use."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
 

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."
"When I use @Test(dataProvider), it causes a loop; the test result/report cannot accept the value of the data and show it in the test result/report."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money."
"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."
"It could be cheaper. I feel like it is a little expensive, but I never honestly understood the enterprise software space."
"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."
"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."
"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."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"The tool's price is high."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.