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."The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"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."
"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."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"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 solution is scalable."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is free to use."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"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."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
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.