testRigor vs Mabl

testRigor vs Mabl

1 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the rapidly evolving landscape of test automation, testRigor and Mabl stand out with their AI-powered capabilities, but cater to different needs. testRigor, a no-code platform, allows tests to be written in plain English and supports a wide range of applications including web, mobile, and desktop.


It is particularly user-friendly and offers a free plan. On the other hand, Mabl is a low-code solution focusing on web applications, with advanced features like visual testing through computer vision. While Mabl cannot be deployed on-premise, testRigor provides this flexibility, appealing to enterprises with specific security requirements.


Latest update: 1/31/2024, 3:45:26 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 testRigor and Mabl

FeaturetestRigorMabl
Free Plan
On Premise
Device FarmN/A
Scheduler
Generates Reports
Uses Computer VisionN/A
No Code
Uses Ai
Platformsweb,Android,iOSweb
Ease Of Usevery easy to learnvery easy to learn
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros 1. Allows writing and generating test scripts using plain English statements.
2. Offers integration with various tools such as JIRA and TestRail.
3. Capable of running tests on multiple browsers and devices simultaneously.
4. Features automatic test script generation, saving time and effort.
5. Provides efficient customer support, ensuring ease of use and implementation.
6. Eliminates the need for learning different programming languages or testing frameworks.
7. Enables the entire team to write end-to-end UI tests quickly without programming knowledge.
8. Generates human-readable test scripts that are easily understandable by anyone.
9. Automates test cases in a very short span of time.
10. Serves as a scalable solution for building a software testing process in non-software companies.
1. Easy to implement and deploy across teams.
2. Comprehensive documentation with practical examples and strong support from the mabl team.
3. Supports multi-browser and API testing, including Postman collection imports for end-to-end user flow automation.
4. No infrastructure maintenance required with a low-code approach suitable for non-technical teams.
5. Demonstrates good return on investment when compared to the cost of hiring full-time testing personnel.
6. Facilitates rapid test case development with built-in auto-healing capabilities, essential for Agile environments.
7. Features an intuitive visual trainer for quick creation and updating of test cases.
8. Supports multi-tab testing in browsers and captures visual comparisons and performance metrics.
9. Enables efficient test creation through features like data tables for testing multiple scenarios.
10. Offers SaaS automation, detailed test results, and a new learning platform (mabl University) for user training.
Review Cons 1. The tool has been reported to crash occasionally, leading to more test case failures.
2. The cost of server resources may be a concern for some users.
3. Lacks educational materials to help improve QA efficiency for companies with less experience.
4. Some users have experienced issues with server responsiveness.
5. Initial challenges may be faced by companies with a limited QA team and lack of software testing knowledge.
1. Does not support native mobile test automation.
2. Lacks integration with some popular test management tools like Testrail.
3. Limited reporting options and areas for improvement in security features.
4. Occasional discrepancies between cloud and local executions, leading to unexpected failures.
5. The mabl documentation could benefit from more detailed, specific examples.
6. The use of labels for test organization can be confusing and has a learning curve.
7. Challenges with the Trainer incorrectly recording steps, requiring re-recording to fix issues.
8. Inconsistencies with tests that only run successfully within a test plan and not independently.
9. Lack of a more extensive community for user support compared to open-source alternatives.
10. Auto-healing feature can be overly aggressive and may incorrectly modify tests without user intent.


Pricing Overview: testRigor vs. mabl

testRigor Pricing Summary

testRigor, a test automation tool, presents a tiered pricing model that includes:

  • Free Plan: Suitable for open-source projects, offering unlimited users, cases, and suites with public tests and results visibility.
  • Private Plan: Starting at $900 per month, this plan provides private tests, a 14-day trial, and options for additional parallelizations. It is designed for more privacy and additional features.
  • Enterprise Plan: Geared towards larger organizations, this plan includes custom pricing and offers a dedicated manager, Slack support, and a possibility for on-premise deployment.

All plans feature unlimited users and test cases.

mabl Pricing Summary

mabl adopts a personalized pricing strategy that is custom-tailored:

  • Custom Quote: Pricing is based on the individual needs of the software team, with a focus on test coverage and scalability.
  • ROI Analysis: The pricing session includes a custom return on investment (ROI) analysis and a comparison with other market solutions.
  • Test Estimation Tools: A calculator is provided to help estimate test requirements.
  • Impact on Development: mabl emphasizes a seamless integration into the development lifecycle, improving test coverage, test creation speed, and reducing bugs in production.

Comparing the Pricing Models

Common Points:

  • Flexibility: Both testRigor and mabl offer pricing models that are designed to cater to a variety of needs, whether it’s for small open-source projects or large enterprises.
  • Customization: Each service provides options for more tailored solutions—testRigor with its additional parallelizations and custom enterprise offerings, and mabl with its entirely personalized pricing quotes.
  • Focus on Scalability: Both tools emphasize scalability in their offerings, ensuring that organizations can adjust their usage as their testing needs grow.

Key Differences:

  • Pricing Transparency: testRigor provides clear-cut tiers with specified starting prices, particularly for its Free and Private plans, whereas mabl requires a pricing request for a custom quote, which is not disclosed upfront.
  • Trial Period: testRigor offers a 14-day trial in its Private plan, which gives users a chance to experience the service before committing financially. mabl does not explicitly mention a trial period in its summary.
  • Additional Tools: mabl includes a custom ROI analysis and a comparison with other market solutions as part of the pricing discussion, which can help in decision-making, whereas testRigor focuses on the features provided at each pricing tier.
  • Support Options: testRigor’s Enterprise plan specifically mentions a dedicated manager and Slack support, suggesting a higher level of personalized support at this level, which is not directly compared in mabl’s pricing model.
  • Visibility of Tests: The Free plan of testRigor specifies that tests and results are publicly visible, a unique feature that may be relevant for open-source projects, not mentioned in mabl’s model.

Conclusion:
Readers should note that while both testRigor and mabl offer scalable and flexible pricing models to accommodate a range of testing needs, testRigor provides more immediate pricing information and tiered options, whereas mabl focuses on a fully customized pricing approach with additional analytical tools to justify the investment.

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