No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Oracle Application Testing Suite vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (13th), Load Testing Tools (13th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.6%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.6%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ3.6%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.6%
Other94.8%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at Cignity Technology
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.
NK
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
Automation revolutionizes testing efficiency and cost savings while ensuring smooth deployment
The challenges I faced while integrating Selenium HQ into my existing systems relate to historical data, which requires going back six years. I have to traverse if there were any challenges because I am sure if there were any, they must have been documented in our ALM documents. The multi-browser support of Selenium HQ impacts my testing process primarily since it is being used in Edge and Chrome browsers. It all depends on our customers. I haven't heard of any challenges with other browsers such as Opera or Mozilla Firefox, as these two browsers are what we primarily use. When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline. This has definitely saved a lot of money for us.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It has allowed more thorough testing with performance-based testing, in addition to regression testing and regular testing with each software release."
"This tool did a much better job recording the http requests during web load testing than other open source tools."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"It's user friendly and in-built API support makes it very easy to automate or develop an automation framework."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"Implementation of Oracle Application Testing Suite package has increased the overall efficiency."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The stability and performance are good."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves; I think it's perfect, as it's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"I like the record and playback features, and we also appreciate that while we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points and provides screenshots of everything in the output."
 

Cons

"I would like to see better dashboards."
"We have stability issues with the server logging off when a script runs from OTM."
"It does not provide easy diagnostics to ascertain end to end transaction monitoring."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"The test installation pretty much destroyed my computer’s laptop performance."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"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."
"Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor."
"The reporting part can be better."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"The reporting part can be better. They need some APIs or maybe in-built libraries for reporting."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"It is free to use."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"Selenium is a free tool."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"It is all free."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"It is an open-source solution."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
889,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Performing Arts
8%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
 

Also Known As

OATS
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Application Testing Suite vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
889,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.