Top 15 Alternatives to Maestro for Android and iOS Testing

Introduction: Where Maestro Fits in Mobile Testing

Mobile UI automation has evolved quickly over the last decade. Early on, teams relied on heavy, code-first frameworks that required deep platform knowledge. Maestro emerged as an open-source, declarative alternative focused on simplicity: you define test flows in YAML, and the framework runs them on Android and iOS devices or simulators. It’s designed to make mobile UI automation accessible, faster to onboard, and easier to run in CI/CD, with cloud runners available.

Why did Maestro become popular?

• It abstracts complex device interactions behind clear, readable flows.

• It supports both Android and iOS from a single test suite.

• It integrates smoothly with modern CI/CD pipelines.

• It embraces a declarative, “what not how” style, lowering the barrier to entry.

Typical components and workflow:

• YAML-based test flows describe steps like navigation, taps, text entry, assertions, and conditional logic.

• Local device/simulator runners and cloud execution options for scale.

• CI/CD integrations to run on pull requests and nightly jobs.

Despite its strengths, teams sometimes outgrow or complement Maestro due to app-specific needs, tech stack preferences, or niche testing requirements. That’s where specialized alternatives come in—ranging from native, gray-box tools to visual/snapshot testing solutions and codeless SaaS platforms.

This article walks through the top 15 alternatives to Maestro, highlighting what each tool does best and how it compares, so you can pick the right fit for your team and apps.

Overview: The Top 15 Maestro Alternatives

Here are the top 15 alternatives for mobile UI testing:

• Appium

• Espresso

• XCUITest

• Detox

• EarlGrey

• UI Automator

• Appium Flutter Driver

• Airtest + Poco

• Airtest Project

• Applitools for Mobile

• Repeato

• Waldo

• Paparazzi (Cash App)

• Shot (Kakao)

• SnapshotTesting (Point‑Free)

Why Look for Maestro Alternatives?

• Need for code-first extensibility: YAML flows are great for readability, but complex logic, custom matchers, or intricate state handling can be easier in code-centric frameworks.

• Platform-specific depth: Native frameworks (Espresso, XCUITest, EarlGrey) offer deeper hooks, faster execution, and tighter integration with their ecosystems.

• Visual/snapshot validations: If your main risk is visual regressions, visual AI or snapshot tools may provide better signal with less test maintenance.

• Game or CV-based automation: Computer-vision-first tools (Airtest, Repeato) can handle Canvas-heavy, OpenGL, or game UIs that don’t expose accessibility trees well.

• App-tech specialization: React Native or Flutter apps benefit from gray-box or dedicated drivers that can synchronize with the app runtime and reduce flakiness.

• Organization-level constraints: Licensing, enterprise reporting, analytics, and device cloud preferences can influence tool selection beyond test authoring experience.

Alternatives in Detail

1) Appium

What it is: Appium is the most widely used open-source framework for cross-platform mobile automation (Android, iOS, and mobile web). It uses the WebDriver protocol and has a huge ecosystem of client libraries, plugins, and community resources.

Core strengths:

• Cross-platform with a single API; supports native, hybrid, and mobile web.

• Massive ecosystem: plugins, cloud providers, community support.

• Language flexibility: Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and more.

• Mature CI/CD patterns and parallelization strategies.

• Extensible with custom drivers and services.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro prioritizes declarative YAML simplicity; Appium prioritizes code-first flexibility.

• Appium generally has broader device cloud support and language choice.

• Maestro can be quicker to onboard for simple flows; Appium scales better for complex frameworks and custom logic.

Ideal use cases:

• Teams building a robust, extensible mobile test suite that must run everywhere in any language.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS, Mobile Web

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: WebDriver

2) Espresso

What it is: Espresso is Google’s official Android UI testing framework. It runs instrumentation tests in the same process as your app, providing fast, reliable synchronization with the UI thread.

Core strengths:

• Tight Android integration with automatic UI synchronization.

• Fast execution and low flakiness when tests are well-structured.

• Rich matcher APIs and strong IDE/tooling integration.

• First-class support in Android Studio and CI environments.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Espresso is Android-only and code-first; Maestro is cross-platform and declarative.

• Espresso is typically faster and more stable for Android apps with good accessibility and testability.

• Maestro is easier for non-Android experts to get started.

Ideal use cases:

• Android-first teams seeking maximum speed, stability, and native tooling.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Java/Kotlin

3) XCUITest

What it is: XCUITest is Apple’s official UI testing framework for iOS. It integrates tightly with Xcode and the iOS ecosystem.

Core strengths:

• Native iOS integration, fast execution on simulators and devices.

• Rich assertions and matchers with Swift/Objective‑C.

• Strong debugging, screenshots, and test attachments via Xcode.

• Stable synchronization with system events.

How it compares to Maestro:

• XCUITest is iOS-only, code-first, with deep Apple ecosystem support.

• Maestro offers a single YAML flow for Android and iOS; XCUITest provides more granular control for iOS specifics.

• For iOS-heavy apps needing deep platform hooks, XCUITest can be more precise.

Ideal use cases:

• iOS-focused teams that want native speed, stability, and Xcode integration.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS

• License: Proprietary (Apple)

• Primary tech: Swift/Objective‑C

4) Detox

What it is: Detox is a gray-box testing framework from Wix, known for React Native but usable for native apps as well. It synchronizes with the app runtime to reduce flakiness.

Core strengths:

• Synchronization with app state to minimize flakiness.

• Strong React Native support; good integration with JS/TypeScript stacks.

• Runs on real devices and simulators with reliable execution.

• Parallel execution and CI-friendly tooling.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Detox gives deeper runtime synchronization, especially valuable for React Native apps.

• Maestro emphasizes declarative flows; Detox emphasizes deterministic gray-box execution with code.

• If React Native is your core tech, Detox often yields more stable tests.

Ideal use cases:

• React Native teams wanting stable, deterministic E2E tests.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Primary tech: JavaScript

5) EarlGrey

What it is: EarlGrey is Google’s open-source UI testing framework for iOS, offering synchronization features similar to Espresso, but for iOS.

Core strengths:

• iOS-focused with robust synchronization for reliable tests.

• Good matchers, assertions, and stable execution.

• Open-source alternative to strictly XCUITest-based stacks.

How it compares to Maestro:

• EarlGrey is iOS-only and code-first, offering precise control and synchronization.

• Maestro is cross-platform and easier to author for non-iOS developers.

• For complex iOS flows where synchronization matters, EarlGrey can be more predictable.

Ideal use cases:

• iOS teams seeking open-source, synchronized, and stable UI tests.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Objective‑C/Swift

6) UI Automator

What it is: UI Automator is Google’s system-level automation framework for Android. It can interact across apps and system UI, beyond a single application’s boundaries.

Core strengths:

• System-level access: interact with notifications, settings, and other apps.

• Useful for end-to-end device workflows that cross app boundaries.

• Integrates with CI and device farms.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro can navigate across apps but is primarily app-centric; UI Automator is designed for broader device-level interactions.

• UI Automator is code-first and Android-only; Maestro is declarative and cross-platform.

• For system UI tasks (permissions, OS dialogs), UI Automator can be more reliable.

Ideal use cases:

• Android automation that must cross app boundaries and handle system UI extensively.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android (system-level)

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Java/Kotlin

7) Appium Flutter Driver

What it is: A dedicated Appium driver that provides direct access to Flutter elements and the Flutter widget tree, enabling more reliable interactions than pure accessibility or CV approaches in Flutter apps.

Core strengths:

• Flutter-specific element access and finders.

• Cross-platform (iOS/Android) through Appium’s infrastructure.

• Retains Appium’s ecosystem benefits: language choice, plugins, device clouds.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro can test Flutter apps, but the Flutter Driver provides deeper element introspection, improving stability.

• Maestro focuses on declarative flows; this driver leverages Appium’s code-first flexibility.

• For complex Flutter widgets, Appium Flutter Driver typically offers more precise control.

Ideal use cases:

• Teams with heavily Flutter-based apps needing widget-level control and stability.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS/Android (Flutter)

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Dart/JSONWP

8) Airtest + Poco

What it is: From NetEase, Airtest + Poco combines image-based automation (Airtest) with UI-tree-based automation (Poco). It works across Android, iOS, and Windows and is popular for apps and games.

Core strengths:

• Hybrid approach: computer vision plus UI-tree access increases robustness.

• Cross-platform support, including Windows desktop.

• Python-based scripting with good flexibility and extensibility.

• Useful for UIs that don’t expose accessible elements (e.g., Canvas-heavy UIs).

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro relies primarily on accessibility and explicit selectors; Airtest adds computer vision for non-standard UIs.

• Maestro’s YAML is simpler for basic flows; Airtest + Poco is more flexible for visual or game-like interfaces.

• If your app has custom rendering or limited accessibility, Airtest + Poco can be more effective.

Ideal use cases:

• Teams automating mixed UI technologies, including games or CV-heavy interfaces.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS, Windows

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Python

9) Airtest Project

What it is: A computer vision–oriented automation framework, also from NetEase, with a strong focus on Android/Windows game testing and image recognition.

Core strengths:

• CV-based interaction ideal for games and custom-rendered UIs.

• Python-based scripting for flexible flows and utilities.

• Suited for scenarios where UI trees are unavailable or unreliable.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro is best when accessibility identifiers are available; Airtest Project shines when they aren’t.

• Airtest requires more CV asset management; Maestro’s YAML is generally lighter to maintain for standard apps.

• For game testing or heavy graphics, Airtest Project is often a better fit.

Ideal use cases:

• Game studios and teams testing visually rich, non-standard UIs.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android/Windows

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Python/CV

10) Applitools for Mobile

What it is: A commercial visual testing solution that uses visual AI to detect UI regressions across platforms and devices. It integrates with many frameworks to add visual validation.

Core strengths:

• Visual AI highlights layout and rendering issues that functional tests can miss.

• Baselines and intelligent comparisons reduce maintenance noise.

• Works across Android and iOS with broad SDK support.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro focuses on functional flows; Applitools focuses on visual correctness.

• They can complement each other: use Maestro for flows and Applitools for visual checks.

• If visual quality is critical (design-driven apps), Applitools may deliver higher ROI.

Ideal use cases:

• Front-end teams and QA validating look-and-feel consistency across releases.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS, Android

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: SDKs

11) Repeato

What it is: A commercial, codeless/computer vision–based mobile testing tool for iOS and Android that aims to be resilient to UI changes while remaining easy to use.

Core strengths:

• Codeless authoring speeds up test creation for non-developers.

• CV-based recognition can handle dynamic or custom components.

• CI/CD and cloud-friendly execution workflows.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Maestro uses declarative YAML; Repeato aims for fully codeless, CV-driven authoring.

• Repeato can be more forgiving when accessibility IDs are missing.

• Maestro may be easier to version-control and review as plain text; Repeato emphasizes ease and resilience.

Ideal use cases:

• Teams wanting minimal coding with strong CV capabilities for mobile apps.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: CV-driven (codeless)

12) Waldo

What it is: A commercial, no-code mobile testing platform with a recorder and cloud execution, designed to simplify test creation and maintenance for iOS and Android.

Core strengths:

• No-code recorder for rapid test authoring.

• Cloud execution at scale with minimal setup.

• Integrated reporting and maintenance tools.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Both aim to simplify mobile testing; Maestro is open-source YAML, Waldo is a commercial no-code SaaS.

• Waldo reduces infrastructure management; Maestro provides more control over pipelines and repos.

• For teams prioritizing speed and minimal setup, Waldo can be compelling.

Ideal use cases:

• Product teams and QA wanting no-code creation, cloud runs, and built-in reporting.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: No-code platform

13) Paparazzi (Cash App)

What it is: An open-source screenshot testing framework for Android that runs UI snapshot tests without launching an emulator, improving speed and determinism.

Core strengths:

• Very fast feedback for UI changes via screenshot diffs.

• Works without an emulator, improving reliability and CI speed.

• Great for pixel-precise UI review and design consistency.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Paparazzi is not a functional E2E runner; it’s focused on UI snapshots.

• Maestro covers navigation and flows; Paparazzi ensures visual stability of components/screens.

• Many teams use both: Paparazzi for UI diffs, Maestro (or another runner) for flows.

Ideal use cases:

• Android teams needing fast, reliable UI screenshot testing in CI.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Kotlin

14) Shot (Kakao)

What it is: An open-source Android screenshot testing tool that simplifies capturing and comparing screenshots within your test suite.

Core strengths:

• Straightforward screenshot capture and diffing.

• Good fit for component- and screen-level visual checks.

• Plays nicely with existing Android test stacks.

How it compares to Maestro:

• Like Paparazzi, Shot is about visuals, not end-to-end flows.

• Maestro drives flows and assertions; Shot tightens visual regression control.

• For teams emphasizing UI fidelity, Shot complements flow-based tests.

Ideal use cases:

• Android teams adding visual diffs alongside Espresso or other runners.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Kotlin

15) SnapshotTesting (Point‑Free)

What it is: A Swift-based snapshot testing library for iOS that captures and compares UI or data structure outputs, commonly used by Swift and iOS teams.

Core strengths:

• Flexible snapshots for views, screens, and even data structures.

• Integrates cleanly with Swift testing patterns.

• Fast feedback on UI changes and component regressions.

How it compares to Maestro:

• SnapshotTesting focuses on visual/state snapshots at unit or component levels.

• Maestro focuses on end-to-end user flows with functional assertions.

• Use SnapshotTesting to catch UI regressions early; use Maestro (or another runner) to validate full journeys.

Ideal use cases:

• iOS teams who want fine-grained UI snapshot checks in Swift.

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Primary tech: Swift

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Maestro Alternative

• App technology and scope:

• Test level and goals:

• Language and team skills:

• Ease of setup and infrastructure:

• Execution speed and flakiness:

• CI/CD integration and parallelization:

• Debugging and reporting:

• Community and ecosystem:

• Scalability and cost:

Conclusion

Maestro earned its place by making mobile UI automation simpler and more accessible with declarative YAML flows, cross-platform support, and CI/CD-friendly execution. For many teams, it remains a strong default—especially when you want readable tests, quick onboarding, and open-source control with the option of cloud runners.

That said, different needs call for different tools:

• If you need deep platform integration and speed: Espresso (Android) and XCUITest or EarlGrey (iOS) are excellent.

• If your app is React Native or you crave reduced flakiness via synchronization: Detox is a standout.

• If your app is Flutter-heavy: Appium Flutter Driver provides widget-level precision.

• If your UI is custom-rendered or game-like: Airtest + Poco or Airtest Project handle CV and graphics-rich flows.

• If visual quality is the priority: Applitools for Mobile, Paparazzi, Shot, and SnapshotTesting deliver strong visual/snapshot coverage.

• If you want minimal setup and codeless workflows: Waldo and Repeato lower the barrier to entry and integrate well with CI.

In practice, high-performing teams often mix tools: one for end-to-end flows, another for visual diffs, and platform-native frameworks for low-level reliability. Choose the combination that aligns with your app stack, team skills, and release cadence—and invest in robust test design and CI to keep flakiness low and feedback fast.