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
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 7.5%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.7%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack7.5%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.7%
Other90.8%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CR
Test Software Development Engineer at uShip, Inc.
Streamlined testing experience with valuable features but high costs prompt a look into alternatives
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 that they don't give you access to, which is understandable. However, being able to have more granular access to the OS would be a good feature. BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services. The amount of what LambdaTest has to offer for their price point seems to be a better financial choice for any company at this point. I haven't used LambdaTest yet; we are exploring options with other providers at this time, and LambdaTest has been the only one that's provided any kind of cost-saving benefit while not losing any of the functionality that we expect to have with these products. BrowserStack is really expensive, which is super annoying. Anytime you want something new, it costs an exorbitant amount. We just attempted to increase our seats and they wanted almost double what we were paying, which was insane because it wasn't double the seats. Companies need to make money, but they also need to work with their customers because otherwise, they'll lose them to competitors like LambdaTest who offer similar services for significantly less.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"BrowserStack has helped us with automating our test cases by reducing the time by almost 60%."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"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"
"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 solution is scalable."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The function test feature is valuable."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"I think a possible improvement for BrowserStack could be adding features such as sending SMS or making FaceTime calls because, as far as I know, those features are not available at the moment."
"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."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"My experience with pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month, and I hoped it could be reduced."
"The solution is slow."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"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."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The price is fine."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"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."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
University
5%
Government
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Performing Arts
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
Improvements for BrowserStack could include better usability when working under a private network or a VPN, since it can be challenging to access restricted URLs. There are times when running an au...
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: January 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.