We performed a comparison between Oracle Application Testing Suite and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"It is very stable."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The solution is free to use."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 24 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our Oracle Application Testing Suite vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.