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

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

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
29th
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
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.3%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.3%
Galen Framework1.5%
Other95.2%
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"In the market, not so many tools are able to check the layout with different screen resolutions as Galen can."
"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"With the experience that I have, I think that it's very good, and I would recommend this solution to others."
"Customer Service: The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good."
"We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
"I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"When they've been working with it for a while and they see the complexity when you're doing real and tough test situations, then they see that this kind of tool is very, very good."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"Number one thing is we are an Oracle shop, so we do Oracle ERP testing, and that add-in from UFT, that technology is not in LeanFT right now."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."
"Technical support is not good."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"There are still some stability issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
8%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Galen Framework vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.