Top 16 Alternatives to Airtest + Poco for Python Testing

Introduction: Where Airtest + Poco Came From and Why It Grew

Airtest + Poco originated from NetEase, primarily to streamline UI automation for mobile and desktop—especially in gaming scenarios. The stack combines two complementary pieces:

• Airtest: A cross-platform UI automation framework with computer-vision-driven interactions and a friendly Python API. It works well where traditional DOM or accessibility trees are limited or unavailable, such as many games and custom-rendered UIs.

• Poco: A UI automation layer that provides a higher-level, hierarchy-focused interface when a UI tree is available (e.g., Unity, Cocos, native Android/iOS).

Airtest + Poco became popular because it solved a hard problem: automating apps and games where classical selectors do not apply. Its strengths include strong Python support, computer-vision (CV)-based actions, and compatibility with Android, Windows, and iOS. Teams also appreciate that it can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines and supports modern testing workflows. With AirtestIDE, it offers a practical way to author and debug scripts in a visual manner.

Despite its adoption, many teams eventually explore alternatives. As product mixes expand to include more web-first applications, as teams seek lower maintenance or more specialized testing (e.g., accessibility, visual validation, performance), or as they aim to standardize on other ecosystems, it can be useful to assess what else is available.

This guide presents the top 16 alternatives—open-source and commercial—that Python-focused teams consider when looking beyond Airtest + Poco.

Overview: The Top 16 Alternatives We’ll Cover

Here are the top 16 alternatives to Airtest + Poco for Python testing:

• Airtest Project

• Applitools Eyes

• Behave

• Locust

• Mabl

• Playwright

• PyAutoGUI

• Pytest

• Pywinauto

• Repeato

• Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

• Selene (Yashaka)

• Squish

• TestCafe Studio

• TestComplete

• Waldo

Why Look for Airtest + Poco Alternatives?

While Airtest + Poco remains a strong option, teams commonly cite these reasons for exploring other tools:

• Test stability and maintenance: CV-based flows can be sensitive to visual changes (fonts, colors, themes, device scaling). Poorly structured scripts may become flaky, increasing maintenance overhead.

• Web-first needs: Teams that primarily test web apps often prefer browser-native tools (e.g., Playwright) for richer debugging, tracing, and browser-level capabilities.

• Specialized testing: Visual regression, BDD-style collaboration, or performance/load testing might require tools specialized for those domains.

• Environment complexity: Setting up real devices, emulators, or Windows environments can be time-consuming, especially at scale and in CI pipelines.

• Team skill set and onboarding: Some teams want low-code/codeless tooling to involve non-developers or reduce scripting effort and ongoing upkeep.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

1) Airtest Project

• What it is: A game UI automation tool for Android and Windows that uses computer vision to interact with complex or custom-rendered UIs. Closely related to Airtest’s foundational capabilities.

• Platforms: Android, Windows

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Python/CV

• Best for: Teams automating end-to-end flows for games or custom UIs where DOM/accessibility trees are limited.

Key strengths:

• CV-based interactions suited to game engines and non-standard UIs.

• Works with modern workflows and can be integrated with CI/CD.

• Pythonic APIs make scripting accessible to QA and developers.

• Strong fit for Android device automation and Windows desktop game testing.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Overlaps heavily with Airtest; consider when you rely primarily on CV-based automation and don’t need Poco’s hierarchy model.

• A good fit if your UI doesn’t expose a robust element tree but you still want open-source, Python-based automation.

2) Applitools Eyes

• What it is: An AI-powered visual testing platform for web, mobile, and desktop apps. It focuses on visual diffs and includes an Ultrafast Grid for rapid cross-browser rendering.

• Platforms: Web, Mobile, Desktop

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: SDKs (JavaScript/Java/Python/.NET)

• Best for: Front-end teams validating look-and-feel across versions.

Key strengths:

• Detects visual regressions reliably with AI-assisted image comparison.

• Helps uncover UI layout issues that functional tests might miss.

• Integrates into existing test suites via language SDKs, including Python.

• Baselines and review workflows improve collaboration and governance.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Not a general-purpose device automation framework; it’s a specialized visual validation layer.

• It complements existing tests (including Airtest/Poco scripts) to add visual confidence, rather than replaces them for functional automation.

3) Behave

• What it is: A BDD (Behavior-Driven Development) framework for Python, akin to Cucumber. It turns plain-language feature files into executable tests.

• Platforms: Python

• License: Open Source (BSD)

• Best for: Cross-functional teams who want readable specifications and collaboration among devs, QA, and business stakeholders.

Key strengths:

• Plain-language feature files improve shared understanding and documentation.

• Encourages test design aligned with business outcomes.

• Works with any lower-level automation library (e.g., Playwright, Appium, Airtest).

• Rich plugin patterns and Python ecosystem compatibility.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Behave doesn’t drive UI automation by itself; it orchestrates it. Use Behave when you want BDD-style organization with Airtest/Poco or an alternative driver underneath.

• Ideal if your main challenge is collaboration and test readability, not device or UI-level automation specifics.

4) Locust

• What it is: A performance/load testing tool where user behavior is scripted in Python and scaled across workers.

• Platforms: Web/API/Protocols

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Best for: Performance engineers and DevOps teams running load, stress, and soak tests.

Key strengths:

• Python-based load generation makes scenarios maintainable and versionable.

• Scales horizontally for large tests; integrates with monitoring and APM.

• Flexible targeting of APIs, web endpoints, and custom protocols.

• Useful for performance baselining and capacity planning.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Locust is not a UI automation tool; it’s purpose-built for performance and load.

• Best used alongside Airtest/Poco or a UI-focused alternative to cover non-functional requirements.

5) Mabl

• What it is: A low-code end-to-end testing platform for web and API. It emphasizes self-healing tests and a SaaS-first experience.

• Platforms: Web + API

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Teams wanting broad E2E coverage without heavy scripting, with built-in CI/CD and analytics.

Key strengths:

• Self-healing reduces test flakiness from UI changes.

• Simplifies setup and maintenance compared to code-heavy frameworks.

• Strong CI/CD integrations and cloud-based execution at scale.

• Built-in dashboards, insights, and collaboration features.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Focuses on web and API rather than native mobile/desktop games.

• A good choice if your primary need is stable web E2E coverage with minimal code, and you value a managed SaaS environment.

6) Playwright

• What it is: A modern end-to-end testing framework for web apps across Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit. Supports Python, Java, .NET, and Node.js.

• Platforms: Web (Chromium/Firefox/WebKit)

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Best for: Teams automating cross-browser web flows with auto-waiting, robust selectors, and trace debugging.

Key strengths:

• Auto-waiting and resilient selectors reduce flakiness.

• Cross-browser by design, including WebKit for Safari coverage.

• Advanced debugging: trace viewer, video, screenshots, network logs.

• Strong Python support and CI/CD integration.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Purpose-built for web, using browser-native protocols rather than computer vision.

• Prefer Playwright for web applications where stability, speed, and deep browser tooling are critical.

7) PyAutoGUI

• What it is: A cross-platform desktop automation toolkit that sends keyboard and mouse events and can locate images on screen.

• Platforms: Windows, macOS, Linux

• License: Open Source (BSD)

• Best for: QA teams working with native desktop apps, legacy software, or simple OS-level automation.

Key strengths:

• OS-level input simulation for virtually any desktop app.

• Lightweight; easy to script simple workflows in Python.

• Works across major desktop operating systems.

• Can combine clicks, hotkeys, and basic image recognition.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Similar in spirit for CV/coordinate-style automation, but focused on desktop and OS interactions.

• A pragmatic option for desktop tasks, though it lacks the richer mobile device orchestration of Airtest.

8) Pytest

• What it is: A popular Python testing framework for unit, functional, and integration tests, known for fixtures and a powerful plugin ecosystem.

• Platforms: Python

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Best for: Teams that want a rock-solid Python test runner and assertion library to orchestrate automation.

Key strengths:

• Clean test syntax and powerful fixtures for setup/teardown.

• Massive plugin ecosystem for reporting, parallelization, and more.

• Easily integrates with UI drivers (Playwright, Selenium, Airtest).

• Well-understood by Python developers; strong community support.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Pytest is a test runner, not a UI automation driver. Use it to structure, run, and report your UI tests built on Airtest/Poco or alternatives.

• Picking Pytest alongside a UI driver often improves maintainability and reporting.

9) Pywinauto

• What it is: A Python library for automating native Windows applications via accessibility and UI automation APIs.

• Platforms: Windows

• License: Open Source (BSD)

• Best for: Teams with Windows-heavy desktop portfolios needing reliable element-based automation.

Key strengths:

• Element-based approach is often more stable than pure image matching.

• Good introspection of Windows UI hierarchies.

• Python API is straightforward for desktop workflows.

• Can be integrated with Pytest and CI infrastructures.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• If your focus is Windows desktop (not mobile or games), Pywinauto can be more resilient than CV-only approaches.

• Choose it when you need robust Windows element interaction over cross-platform CV strategies.

10) Repeato

• What it is: A codeless/computer-vision testing tool for iOS and Android. Emphasizes resilience to UI changes and CI integration.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Mobile teams seeking codeless CV-based tests with cloud-friendly workflows.

Key strengths:

• CV-driven and resilient to certain UI changes.

• Codeless approach lowers the barrier for non-developers.

• Integrates with CI/CD for automated mobile pipelines.

• Useful for teams that want fast authoring without heavy scripting.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Overlaps in CV-based philosophy but targets a codeless experience.

• A good option if your team values non-code authoring for mobile while still needing computer-vision-based robustness.

11) Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

• What it is: A keyword-driven automation framework with a large ecosystem. The SeleniumLibrary adds browser automation capabilities.

• Platforms: Web

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Python ecosystem

• Best for: Teams who prefer keyword-driven test authoring and broad ecosystem plugins.

Key strengths:

• Readable, keyword-driven syntax suitable for non-developers.

• Large ecosystem of libraries and integrations.

• Works well in CI/CD and supports common reporting formats.

• Extensible in Python for custom keywords and utilities.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Better aligned with web testing via Selenium; not a CV-first approach.

• Use it when you want maintainable, keyword-driven web tests and a large community, rather than device-level CV automation.

12) Selene (Yashaka)

• What it is: A Python wrapper over Selenium inspired by Selenide, offering concise, readable browser automation APIs.

• Platforms: Web

• License: Open Source

• Best for: Python teams who want a more expressive Selenium interface with improved stability patterns.

Key strengths:

• Cleaner abstractions over Selenium reduce boilerplate.

• Built-in waiting strategies help reduce flakiness.

• Plays nicely with Pytest fixtures and reports.

• Active community around Python web testing.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Strictly web-focused and element-based, not CV-driven.

• Choose Selene if your priority is easier Selenium-based web tests with Pythonic ergonomics.

13) Squish

• What it is: A commercial GUI automation tool with strong support for Qt, QML, desktop, web, and embedded systems, with scripting in Python/JS/Ruby/Tcl/Perl.

• Platforms: Desktop, Embedded, QML, Qt, Web

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Teams building Qt/QML or embedded UIs seeking specialized support and reliable object recognition.

Key strengths:

• Deep, native support for Qt/QML and embedded platforms.

• Object-based recognition often yields stable tests.

• Scripting flexibility across multiple languages, including Python.

• Professional support and integration options for CI.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• If you’re testing Qt/QML or embedded apps, Squish can provide more reliable object models than CV-only flows.

• Consider Squish when your stack is deeply invested in Qt/embedded and you value commercial support.

14) TestCafe Studio

• What it is: The codeless IDE variation of TestCafe for web testing, designed to simplify authoring and maintenance.

• Platforms: Web

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Web teams who want codeless authoring plus modern browser automation with minimal setup.

Key strengths:

• Codeless and assisted authoring reduces scripting overhead.

• Stable execution engine without needing browser drivers.

• Built-in reporting and CI-friendly workflows.

• Good for teams with mixed skill sets.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Targeted at web testing, not mobile/desktop or CV-based automation.

• A strong choice if you need straightforward web E2E coverage with reduced code and setup complexity.

15) TestComplete

• What it is: A commercial end-to-end testing tool by SmartBear for desktop, web, and mobile, supporting record/playback and multiple scripting languages.

• Platforms: Desktop, Mobile, Web

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: JavaScript/Python/VBScript/DelphiScript

• Best for: Organizations seeking a unified, codeless/scripted solution across platforms with vendor support.

Key strengths:

• Record/playback accelerates initial coverage; scripting expands power.

• Broad platform coverage including desktop and mobile.

• Integrations for CI/CD and reporting in enterprise environments.

• Vendor ecosystem and support for onboarding and scaling.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Provides a more polished, integrated experience across platforms with commercial backing.

• Opt for TestComplete if you want a vendor-supported, cross-platform tool that still allows Python scripting.

16) Waldo

• What it is: A no-code mobile UI testing platform for iOS and Android, offering a recorder and cloud execution.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Mobile teams prioritizing speed-to-coverage and collaboration without writing code.

Key strengths:

• No-code recorder reduces time to create and maintain tests.

• Cloud execution simplifies device management and scaling.

• CI/CD-friendly setup for automated mobile pipelines.

• Useful for teams with limited scripting resources.

How it compares to Airtest + Poco:

• Focused on mobile and codeless workflows rather than Python scripting and CV APIs.

• Choose Waldo when non-developers need to contribute heavily to mobile testing and you want an easy cloud path.

Things to Consider Before Choosing an Airtest + Poco Alternative

Before committing to a new tool, align your choice with your context:

• Application under test (AUT) scope:

• Language and team skills:

• Setup and environment:

• Execution speed and stability:

• CI/CD integration and reporting:

• Debugging and observability:

• Community and support:

• Scalability and cost:

Conclusion

Airtest + Poco remains a powerful choice—especially for game automation and scenarios where traditional selectors fail. Its Python-first approach, CV capabilities, and multi-platform support make it a practical, open-source foundation that integrates into modern CI pipelines.

Still, the best tool depends on what you are testing and who is doing the testing. If you are web-first and want robust cross-browser coverage with strong debugging, Playwright and Selene are compelling. If your priorities lean toward readable specs and cross-functional collaboration, Behave or Robot Framework can help. For Windows desktop apps, Pywinauto may deliver more stable element interactions. If you need to reduce scripting effort, commercial platforms like TestComplete, Mabl, TestCafe Studio, Repeato, or Waldo can speed up authoring and scale execution. And when visual quality is paramount, Applitools Eyes adds an essential layer of visual validation; when performance matters, Locust covers load and stress scenarios that UI frameworks do not.

In short:

• Stick with Airtest + Poco if you need CV-based automation across mobile/desktop, especially for games or custom-rendered UIs, and you want Python control with open-source flexibility.

• Choose a web-native framework (Playwright, Selene, Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary) if your app is browser-centric and you want speed and stability.

• Consider codeless or commercial platforms (TestComplete, Mabl, TestCafe Studio, Repeato, Waldo) when you need faster onboarding, built-in analytics, and managed infrastructure.

• Complement your functional tests with specialized tools like Applitools Eyes for visual quality and Locust for performance.

Many teams also mix tools: for example, Pytest or Behave to orchestrate, Playwright or Pywinauto to drive the UI, and Applitools Eyes or a device cloud to enhance coverage. The right combination depends on your app’s technology, your team’s skills, and your desired balance between flexibility, speed, and long-term maintenance.