Leapwork vs Marathon

Leapwork vs Marathon

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the dynamic realm of test automation, Leapwork and Marathon emerge as distinct solutions tailored to diverse user needs. Leapwork offers a no-code, AI-enhanced platform that caters to non-technical testers with visual workflows, while Marathon focuses on test execution optimization for Android and iOS with features like batching and sharding, requiring some technical prowess.

Both tools generate reports and support continuous integration, but vary in accessibility—Leapwork lacks a free plan, unlike Marathon’s open-source advantage. Understanding their unique capabilities is key to choosing the right tool for your testing strategy.

Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.

Feature comparison of Leapwork and Marathon

Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer Vision
Ease Of Usevery easy to learnrequires expert technical knowledge
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros – Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
Review Cons – Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.

Pricing Overview of Leapwork and Marathon

Leapwork Pricing Model

Leapwork Test Automation has adopted a custom pricing strategy that caters to a diverse clientele, ranging from small businesses to large enterprises. The pricing is not publicly disclosed, emphasizing a tailored approach where potential customers are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with Leapwork’s sales team. This enables Leapwork to provide a bespoke quote that aligns with the specific needs, scale, and goals of each business. The emphasis is on flexibility and customization, ensuring that the pricing plan is suited to the client’s team size, usage patterns, and desired outcomes.

Marathon Pricing Model

Marathon is positioned distinctly in the marketplace as a free, open-source software. It is readily available for download and use without any associated costs. This model is particularly attractive for individuals, startups, or companies with limited budgets who are looking for an automation tool without the financial commitment. The open-source nature of Marathon also implies a community-driven approach to updates and support, which can be a significant consideration for organizations looking at long-term sustainability and community engagement.

Comparison of Pricing Models

When comparing the pricing models of Leapwork and Marathon, there are several key differences and commonalities to consider:


  • Both Leapwork and Marathon offer automation solutions that can potentially serve businesses of various sizes.
  • Each product provides a means for organizations to enhance their software testing processes through automation.


  • Customization vs. Standardization: Leapwork’s model is highly customizable, which is ideal for organizations seeking a solution that can be tailored to their specific needs. In contrast, Marathon offers a standardized product without the option for personalized pricing or features.
  • Cost: Leapwork operates on a quote-based pricing system, which implies that costs can vary widely based on the client’s requirements. Marathon, being free and open-source, eliminates cost as a barrier to entry, offering a one-size-fits-all solution with no direct financial cost.
  • Engagement Model: To obtain pricing information from Leapwork, interested parties must engage with the company’s sales team, which can be a more time-consuming process. Marathon allows immediate access and use without the need for such engagement.
  • Support and Community: Leapwork’s model likely includes some level of customer support and service as part of the pricing plan. With Marathon’s open-source nature, support typically comes from the community of users and contributors, which can vary in responsiveness and expertise.


Understanding the key differences between Leapwork and Marathon’s pricing models is crucial for businesses making an informed decision. Leapwork’s personalized pricing can accommodate specific business needs, potentially offering more dedicated support, while Marathon’s free, open-source model provides an accessible and cost-effective solution with community-driven support. Organizations must assess their financial flexibility, desired level of customization, and support needs when choosing between these two products.

Like this article? there’s more where that came from!