We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The solution is free to use."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"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."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
Galen Framework is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
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.