We performed a comparison between Galen Framework and Worksoft Certify 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's very different versus other tools in the past, which were not very modern. It easy for people to automate."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"The biggest feature is the fact that it's codeless. It takes away the problem of finding people with the correct programming language, since there are multiple such languages. It saves time in introducing people to the solution because they don't need programming knowledge, they just need to be able to think logically. This makes it vastly usable by more people who are not even acquainted with IT at all."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them."
"For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts."
"The most valuable feature is its time saving. Once development is complete, the short time that it takes to execute a test is invaluable. It saves a number of dollars and man-hours."
"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."
"The technical support has been good, but sometimes there are little delays. A lot of times when we need support, it's an emergency situation."
"In the past, when we've tried to automate some of our web apps, it has not been as robust. If there were one thing that could be improved, it's interaction with web applications. The issue we were running into is that it was harder to identify the objects than it is with some of the other architectured applications."
"It is poor for a web based application."
"The technical support of the product is an area of concern where certain improvements are required."
"The problem with Worksoft Certify is that it's not always stable. It runs on a live platform that's constantly changing, so the test script needs to be adjusted every time, which is very painful."
"I would like the GUI to be more user-friendly and intuitive. We want to be able to move assets from project to another project without having to be in the same project or the same folder structure."
"The primary area for improvement is the support service."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
Galen Framework is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. Galen Framework is rated 8.6, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Galen Framework writes "Scalable with strong reporting capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". Galen Framework is most compared with , whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Panaya Test Dynamix.
See our list of best Functional 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.