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

Galen Framework vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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
8th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.7%
Galen Framework1.5%
Other94.8%
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."
"LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow, so our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE, which helps get the whole team involved in test automation."
"The good points in UFT are the cost, it's easy to use, the installation is quite clear, the licensing model is quite good, and the object recognition feature is very good."
"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
 

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."
"In future releases, I'd like to see disruptors such as IOT and test drones."
"The tool is not the problem. The problem is that we can't get the tool working, because there are other issues."
"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."
"This solution is not scalable at all."
"Since it was a slightly different way of doing things, it was a little complex."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"I would give six for scalability because TestComplete is lightweight, but unlike that, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is heavyweight and consumes almost half of the system memory whenever it is up and running, frequently making the system hang."
"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"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."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"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.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

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: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.