Autify alternatives

Autify made a strong bet: record the flow by clicking through it, then let AI self-healing keep the recorded steps working as the interface changes. For many teams that works well, and native mobile coverage in the same tool is a real advantage.

Teams look at alternatives when recording stops being the shortcut — long forms are tedious to perform, a recording cannot be made before the feature exists, and every recorded suite eventually becomes a step list somebody maintains.

Here is the field, with what each option asks for in return. Testmode is on the list because we make it, placed where it honestly belongs.

The alternatives at a glance

Tool	How a test is created	Scope	Best for
Testmode	Described in plain English	Web	Describing beats performing
testRigor	Plain English, defined command set	Web, mobile, desktop, API	Breadth without recording
Rainforest QA	AI drafts it, you edit steps	Web	A suite proposed for you
Testim	Recorded, with ML smart locators	Web	Mature recording plus stability
mabl	AI-generated, refined in an editor	Web, mobile, API	Pipeline-first teams
Spur	AI QA agents	Web, native mobile	E-commerce with a QA function
Playwright	Written as code	Web	Developer teams owning the suite

Testmode

Best for: when saying what should happen is faster than doing it.

You write the test as a sentence and an AI opens a real browser and carries it out. Because there is nothing to record, you can write the test before the feature exists — useful when you are specifying work for a supplier — and there is no step list to maintain afterwards.

The trade-off: web only, so if native mobile is why you chose Autify, this does not replace it. And you give up the explicit, inspectable step list that recording produces.

testRigor

Best for: plain-English authoring with reach.

Web, native mobile, Windows desktop and API, plus email, SMS and two-factor flows, authored in English drawn from a documented command set. It covers Autify’s mobile requirement while removing the recording step.

The trade-off: the command set is a syntax you learn.

Rainforest QA

Best for: teams that want the regression suite suggested for them.

Its AI examines your application and drafts candidate tests, edited afterwards in a no-code visual editor that avoids CSS selectors. Video replay with browser and network logs is strong for debugging.

The trade-off: web only, and still a step list to keep current.

Testim

Best for: staying with recording, but with stronger locators.

Machine-learning smart locators keep recorded UI tests working as the interface moves, backed by a long track record and Tricentis behind it.

The trade-off: it is the same fundamental model as Autify. A sideways move if recording is the thing you want to leave.

mabl

Best for: wiring tests into a delivery pipeline.

AI-generated tests refined in an editor, with deep GitHub, GitLab, Jenkins, CircleCI and Jira integration, across web, mobile, API and performance.

The trade-off: most of the value needs CI you may not have.

Spur

Best for: e-commerce teams with someone to direct the agents.

AI QA agents across web and native mobile, with a strong e-commerce focus and parallel execution suited to teams shipping constantly.

The trade-off: expects a QA function to point it in the right direction.

Playwright

Best for: teams with developers and no licence budget.

Free, open source, fully programmatic, with an excellent trace viewer. It also has a recorder, if recording is genuinely how you want to start.

The trade-off: every flow is a script somebody writes and maintains.

How to choose

Is native mobile a requirement? If it is, that decides most of this: Autify, testRigor, mabl and Spur cover it; Testmode, Rainforest QA and Testim are web tools.
Is recording helping or hurting? For drag-and-drop, canvas work and long form-heavy flows, performing the test really is faster than describing it. For everything else, a sentence is quicker and survives a redesign better.
Do you need the test before the software? Only description can do that. Recording needs something to record.
Who maintains the suite in six months? Every recorded step list needs an owner. If nobody has that time, weight it heavily.

Where Autify is still the right answer

Stay with Autify if you need web and native mobile in one tool; if your flows depend on precise interactions that are far easier to demonstrate than describe; if you want every step explicit, visible and editable for auditability; or if your team genuinely finds clicking through a flow the natural way to work — for long, fiddly, many-fielded forms, it often is.

The teams that gain from moving are the ones writing tests for software that does not exist yet, or watching recorded-step maintenance grow faster than the suite itself.