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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This tool did a much better job recording the http requests during web load testing than other open source tools."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"For a few years, OATS was the only tool that allowed us to load test our Computer Telephone Integration (CTI) with Siebel."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"Helps us to reduce the workload to check the system."
"You can build your own framework; I think that's the most powerful feature, and you can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks or keywords, which helps make it a stronger solution."
"We designed the Omani-channel automation framework, and achieved the maximum testing coverage includes localization (approximately 19), environment (web and mobile [iOS and Android]), and browser."
"The main improvement is the lower cost of regression tests, where it may be about 30% more expensive in the first iteration but can save up to 40% or 50% in the next runs, and once the test scripts have been built, it is not necessary for the person executing the test processes to be an expert, allowing resources and costs to be optimized with lower costs in human talent and eliminating the barrier of functional knowledge."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"We can now do so in just one day to sign off a regression test as compared to four days before we had automated tests."
"They are working on a new product which gives you an opportunity to test your product with different browsers at the same time."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
 

Cons

"We have stability issues with the server logging off when a script runs from OTM."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Room for improvement would be for the reporting features. If they could improve the dashboards, that would be helpful."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"Being an open source product, there is no customer service or technical support available."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"One key area for improvement is the documentation."
"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."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Because Selenium HQ is open source, we don't have a customer service team or technical support, so we have to search on our own for answers."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"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."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The pricing is open source."
"It is an open-source solution."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"I have been using the open-source version."
"The product is open-source and free."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
886,077 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: March 2026.
886,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.