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
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (15th)
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 July 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 4.2%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.2%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other94.3%
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

"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"It has allowed more thorough testing with performance-based testing, in addition to regression testing and regular testing with each software release."
"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."
"My advice to others is if they are using any Oracle Cloud Fusion-based or on-premise-based application, this is a good solution to use."
"Selenium gives me the ability to write my test using the programming environment I am already familiar with."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Hot tool in market. Makes thing easier to use and implement."
"I do recommend Selenium HQ to other organizations because we are in a business that is primarily based on B2B interface."
"In my opinion, it is a complete end-to-end solution."
"The most valuable feature I have found is the bomb file and it is easy in its coding."
"The product is quite stable."
 

Cons

"I would like to see better dashboards."
"I would rate their technical support 2.5 out of ten."
"Improvements can be made in a number of protocol support areas, including enhanced Citrix support."
"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."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"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."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"I would like to see a better method handling. I mean methods/properties like Displayed, which should return false when there is no such element on the page instead NoSuchElementException, which has to be handled in my code – it should be provided with Selenium."
"Both of those are easier solutions than Selenium but also quite expensive."
"There is no particular documentation about it that can help me in a technical way."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"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%."
"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 has problems with some objects."
 

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."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"It is free."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"Selenium HQ is a free and open-source solution and is supported by Google."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
906,781 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

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.
906,781 professionals have used our research since 2012.