We performed a comparison between Galen Framework, IBM Rational Functional Tester, and OpenText UFT One 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."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"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."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
