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
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
7th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.8%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.8%
Galen Framework1.6%
Other94.6%
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

"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 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."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"In our case, because we’re in the insurance industry, we have technologies from 20 years old to brand new, and that’s one reason that LeanFT is so great -- because it can support all those technologies, even the older ones."
"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."
"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."
"Even with the problems that I have mentioned, I think that this is one of the best solutions on the market right now."
"Since we started using the Quality Center for the integration of all Microsoft tools, things have been much easier for us."
 

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."
"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."
"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster."
"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."
"It's newer so it doesn't support as many technologies which makes the investment a little bit harder for us to absorb more licenses than we currently have or to justify buying any more licenses than we currently have because it only supports a certain subset of our customers."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"As the releases come, support for all technologies in the systems under test that UFT currently support will be the obvious place for improvement."
"If someone is starting right from the beginning, I would not recommend they go with UFT."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"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 cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction 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: October 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.