We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"I like its simplicity."
"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 we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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 Galen Framework vs. Selenium HQ report.
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.