Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs Oracle Application Testing Suite 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

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
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 (15th), Load Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.1%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users
I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"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 like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
 

Cons

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"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."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is fine."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"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."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
6%
Government
18%
Computer Software Company
12%
Retailer
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?
My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.