We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and OpenText Silk Test 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."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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 should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
Earn 20 points
Galen Framework is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish.
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.
