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
26th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (17th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 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 4.3%, 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 HQ4.3%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other94.2%
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

"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."
"I can organize test scripts pretty well."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature, the recording feature is the prime feature that open script has, and I also like the connectivity with Oracle Forms as it is very compatible."
"Implementation of Oracle Application Testing Suite package has increased the overall efficiency."
"Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"Helps us to reduce the workload to check the system."
"The Product as a whole is an integrated package with excellent co-relation with all Oracle Applications and any web-based application."
"The solution is scalable."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"We gained like seven seconds after moving to Selenium."
"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."
"Overall, this is a good product and I recommend it."
"If you have a web application, I would strongly recommend this, as it has a lot of benefits as described above."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"In my opinion, it is a complete end-to-end solution."
 

Cons

"OTM Test Report – We needed to develop custom reports as there is less flexibility."
"There is one piece of functionality that is currently not offered and would be very good to have: Support for Digital Certificates authentication and Single Sign-On (SSO)."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"It does not provide easy diagnostics to ascertain end to end transaction monitoring."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"The tool runs out of memory when the recording flows are long and involve many screens despite increasing the memory settings for OpenScript."
"I would rate their technical support 2.5 out of ten."
"The test installation pretty much destroyed my computer’s laptop performance."
"Dynamic debugging needs to be improved. Like QTP, there should be an option to run the test from a point or state of application."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Some parts are not automatable, especially CAPTCHAs and complex applications where objects are not identified properly."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"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."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"Selenium is a free tool."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"The setup cost is open source or free."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
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.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.