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 (14th), Load Testing Tools (14th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.1%, up from 3.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.1%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other94.4%
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.
Sri Durga U - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer Data at Epsilon
Offers versatility in testing automation while improvements can elevate its capabilities
I currently use Jenkins and Maven for framework development. The flow involves creating the project with Maven, and once test case execution is completed locally, we push the jobs to Jenkins. It automatically triggers the executions in Jenkins so everyone in the team can see the execution report and status. I would rate the solution at 60% out of 100. Previously, troubleshooting was difficult. When test cases fail for various reasons, logs cannot explain everything, but logging is very important to get the failure results. For logging, Amazon Q will suggest where the log code needs to be included. In Jenkins, when the code is executed and results are viewed, we can easily identify where the error occurred and troubleshoot efficiently, reducing time by two to three hours. I can recommend many packages with Selenium HQ. Wait conditions and numerous features are available to use. I recommend most of them to individuals. My overall rating for Selenium HQ is 7 out of 10.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"I can organize test scripts pretty well."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"It has allowed more thorough testing with performance-based testing, in addition to regression testing and regular testing with each software release."
"It's user friendly and in-built API support makes it very easy to automate or develop an automation framework."
"The best feature of this and Load Test is simplicity."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very 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."
"It's open source, free, stable, and easy to use."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The parallel batch execution as well as reporting feature in the tests are very valuable to me."
"This is the most widely used tool throughout the world in this space, it has so much support available and is a benchmark for other tools."
"The data collection and sorting is the solution's most valuable feature."
"Compared to commercial tools such as TestComplete, Selenium WebDriver is a better choice for web auto-testing."
 

Cons

"WebForms works fine, but scripting in the EBS forms option isn't very consistent and stable."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"The test installation pretty much destroyed my computer’s laptop performance."
"There are certain bugs which were present but was cleared in subsequent releases of application, but still there is room for improvement in the Functionality testing tool when automating form-based applications."
"We have stability issues with the server logging off when a script runs from OTM."
"The tool runs out of memory when the recording flows are long and involve many screens despite increasing the memory settings for OpenScript."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"I think that licensing policies could be more intuitive; when we installed this application for the first time, we couldn't understand why there were only two users."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ."
"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."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Currently WebDriver is having issues running against the latest of Firefox."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"The product is open-source and free."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"It is free to use."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,456 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

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 Enterprise52
 

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: June 2026.
902,456 professionals have used our research since 2012.