Top 4 Alternatives to Behat for PHP Testing

Introduction: Behat’s place in PHP testing

Behat emerged in the early 2010s as a behavior-driven development (BDD) framework for PHP, inspired by Cucumber. It brought business-readable specifications to the PHP ecosystem using Gherkin syntax (Feature, Scenario, Given/When/Then), allowing developers, QA, and non-technical stakeholders to collaborate on acceptance criteria and executable specifications. Behat’s core concepts—features, scenarios, step definitions, contexts, and hooks—make it a natural fit for acceptance testing and living documentation. It can be extended with tools like Mink for browser automation, integrates into PHP projects easily, and is open source (MIT), which drove significant adoption in PHP communities and frameworks.

Behat became popular because it:

• Bridges the communication gap between business, QA, and engineering through readable, shared language.

• Fits naturally in PHP codebases and CI pipelines.

• Encourages specification-by-example, turning acceptance criteria into automated tests.

However, as teams expand test coverage and venture into cross-browser web UI, mobile apps, and API-rich flows—often spanning multiple programming languages—some look for alternatives more tailored to modern end-to-end (E2E) automation, visual robustness, or codeless/low-code authoring. The tools below reflect a trend toward SaaS-first platforms, AI-assisted maintenance, and broader platform support beyond PHP, while still complementing or replacing Behat in certain contexts.

Overview: Top Behat alternatives covered

Here are the top 4 alternatives to Behat for PHP testing:

• Mabl

• Repeato

• TestCafe Studio

• Waldo

These tools take different approaches—low-code/AI for web and API (Mabl), computer-vision-based mobile testing (Repeato), codeless web UI testing (TestCafe Studio), and no-code mobile app testing in the cloud (Waldo). Each can be used alongside or instead of Behat when your testing strategy moves beyond PHP-based BDD.

Why look for Behat alternatives?

Behat remains a strong choice for BDD in PHP. Still, teams often seek alternatives when they encounter:

• Cross-platform E2E coverage needs

• Maintenance overhead for large step libraries

• UI testing complexity and flakiness

• Execution speed and parallelization at scale

• Reporting, analytics, and collaboration

• Skill diversity and codeless workflows

Alternative 1: Mabl

What it is

Mabl is a low-code, AI-assisted end-to-end testing platform for web and API testing. It emphasizes self-healing tests, integrated CI/CD workflows, and a SaaS-first approach that reduces infrastructure management. It is a commercial solution.

What makes it different

• Low-code authoring and AI features reduce scripting overhead.

• Self-healing capabilities improve selector resilience as UI changes.

• Strong integration into cloud-native workflows and CI/CD pipelines.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities across web and API layers, enabling comprehensive E2E coverage.

• Self-healing selectors and automatic updates when DOMs change, reducing flaky test maintenance.

• Cloud-based execution with parallel runs and environment management, helping scale test throughput.

• Built-in reporting, analytics, and collaboration that surface trends and failures quickly.

• Integration with CI/CD systems to trigger tests on merges, deployments, or schedules.

• Visual change detection and assertions that can catch UI regressions.

How it compares to Behat

• Approach: Behat is code-first and BDD-oriented in PHP, relying on step definitions and Gherkin feature files. Mabl is low-code and AI-driven, prioritizing fast authoring and maintenance for web/API E2E.

• Platform coverage: Mabl spans multi-browser web testing and APIs; Behat can integrate with browser drivers but requires more manual setup and coding.

• Maintenance: Mabl’s self-healing reduces selector churn; Behat users typically maintain selectors and step logic manually.

• Reporting and analytics: Mabl provides richer out-of-the-box dashboards and trend analysis; Behat often relies on custom reporting or integrations.

• Team accessibility: Non-PHP contributors can author tests in Mabl’s low-code environment; Behat assumes comfort with PHP and Gherkin.

Best for

Teams automating end-to-end flows across browsers and platforms who want a low-code, AI-assisted approach with strong CI/CD integration and cloud scalability.

Alternative 2: Repeato

What it is

Repeato is a codeless mobile UI testing tool for iOS and Android that uses computer vision (CV) to recognize and interact with app elements. It emphasizes resilience to UI changes and integrates with modern workflows. It is a commercial solution.

What makes it different

• Computer-vision-based interactions reduce dependency on fragile selectors.

• Designed specifically for mobile UI automation, including native gesture support.

• Codeless authoring allows broader team participation.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities for mobile platforms (Android, iOS), including gestures and device-specific interactions.

• CV-based recognition that can be more resilient to layout and style changes than typical locator strategies.

• CI/CD integration to run tests on every build or release candidate.

• Cloud or local execution options for faster feedback loops.

• Visual validation and screenshots to diagnose UI issues quickly.

How it compares to Behat

• Platform focus: Repeato targets native mobile UI testing. Behat is primarily for PHP-based acceptance/BDD and is not mobile-specific.

• Locator strategy: Repeato uses computer vision to reduce selector brittleness. Behat relies on whatever driver/integration you use (e.g., CSS/XPath selectors via browser drivers).

• Authoring experience: Repeato is codeless; Behat requires Gherkin for specs and PHP for step definitions.

• Ecosystem: Repeato offers mobile-optimized workflows and device support, while Behat is a general BDD framework that can integrate with mobile testing through additional layers but with more complexity.

Best for

Teams focusing on mobile app automation that want resilient, codeless tests and do not want to maintain extensive selector logic or mobile-specific frameworks in PHP.

Alternative 3: TestCafe Studio

What it is

TestCafe Studio is a commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe for end-to-end web UI testing. It enables test creation without code, while benefiting from TestCafe’s robust web automation engine which avoids reliance on Selenium/WebDriver.

What makes it different

• Codeless recording and editing capabilities layered on top of a modern web automation engine.

• Does not require browser plugins or WebDriver; runs tests in real browsers and supports parallelization.

• Built-in test management and debugging inside a dedicated IDE.

Core strengths

• Broad web automation capabilities with stable cross-browser execution.

• Codeless test creation, plus the option to export or work alongside code-based tests in the TestCafe ecosystem.

• Parallel runs and robust waiting mechanisms that reduce flakiness.

• First-class support for modern web technologies and SPAs.

• Integration with CI/CD for automated regression suites on merges and releases.

• Comprehensive reporting and native debugging tools in the IDE.

How it compares to Behat

• Technology model: Behat is PHP-based BDD with Gherkin specs. TestCafe Studio focuses on codeless web UI testing powered by TestCafe’s engine.

• Ease of setup: TestCafe Studio abstracts setup via a packaged IDE; Behat requires PHP tooling, step definitions, and browser driver integrations.

• Test scope: TestCafe Studio targets end-to-end web UI; Behat is broader for acceptance/BDD but not specialized for UI robustness without extra layers.

• Team composition: Non-PHP testers can contribute through codeless workflows in TestCafe Studio; Behat assumes comfort with Gherkin and PHP.

Best for

Teams that need codeless web UI automation with strong parallelization and CI integration, and prefer an IDE-driven workflow over managing PHP-based BDD step libraries.

Alternative 4: Waldo

What it is

Waldo is a no-code mobile app testing platform for iOS and Android that offers a recorder-based authoring experience and cloud execution. It emphasizes speed, collaboration, and coverage without requiring test code. It is a commercial solution.

What makes it different

• No-code recording that captures flows quickly, making mobile test authoring accessible.

• Cloud-hosted execution with device coverage for fast parallel runs.

• Focus on team collaboration and continuous testing for mobile.

Core strengths

• Broad test automation capabilities for native mobile apps with minimal setup.

• Scalable cloud runs across devices, OS versions, and app builds.

• Integration with CI/CD pipelines for automated smoke and regression suites.

• Built-in reporting, screenshots, and videos for quick triage.

• Reduced maintenance overhead due to recorder-driven flows and platform-managed infrastructure.

How it compares to Behat

• Platform specialization: Waldo focuses on mobile UI testing. Behat is a PHP BDD framework for acceptance tests across domains but not specialized for mobile.

• Authoring: Waldo’s no-code recorder vs. Behat’s Gherkin plus PHP step definitions.

• Infrastructure: Waldo provides cloud execution and device coverage out of the box; Behat requires integrating with mobile testing stacks if targeting apps, adding complexity.

• Maintenance: Waldo reduces setup and maintenance burden; Behat gives full control but demands more engineering effort for UI/mobile-specific tests.

Best for

Teams building and releasing mobile apps frequently who want no-code test creation, cloud device coverage, and quick integration into CI.

Things to consider before choosing a Behat alternative

Before switching or supplementing Behat with another tool, assess:

• Project scope and platforms

• Team skills and authoring style

• Language and ecosystem alignment

• Setup and infrastructure

• Execution speed and parallelization

• Flakiness and maintenance

• Debugging and reporting

• CI/CD integration and shift-left/shift-right testing

• Scalability and performance

• Governance, access control, and auditability

• Cost and licensing

• Vendor lock-in and portability

Choosing between Behat and the alternatives

• Stay with Behat if:

• Consider Mabl if:

• Consider Repeato if:

• Consider TestCafe Studio if:

• Consider Waldo if:

Practical migration and coexistence strategies

• Complement, don’t replace immediately

• Identify gaps first

• Start with a pilot suite

• Standardize conventions

• Integrate into CI/CD early

• Maintain traceability

Conclusion

Behat is a mature, open source BDD/acceptance tool for PHP that excels at turning human-readable specifications into executable tests. Its strengths—readable specs, strong PHP alignment, and community adoption—make it a great fit for many teams. Still, as testing spans more surfaces and skill sets, alternatives can offer compelling advantages.

• Mabl brings low-code, AI-assisted web and API testing, self-healing, and robust cloud analytics that can cut maintenance costs and accelerate feedback.

• Repeato focuses on mobile UI automation with computer vision and codeless authoring, delivering resilience against frequent UI changes on iOS and Android.

• TestCafe Studio offers codeless web UI testing in a dedicated IDE, backed by a modern automation engine that simplifies parallelized, cross-browser runs.

• Waldo streamlines mobile app testing with a no-code recorder and scalable cloud device coverage, ideal for fast-moving mobile release cycles.

In short:

• Keep Behat when BDD in PHP is central and collaborative specification is a core practice.

• Adopt one of the alternatives when your priorities shift to cross-platform E2E coverage, codeless authoring, AI-assisted maintenance, or mobile-first testing at scale.

The best path may be a hybrid approach—use Behat for specification-by-example at the business logic layer, while relying on one of the listed tools for high-fidelity UI and mobile journeys. This balance preserves the collaboration benefits of BDD while meeting the speed, scale, and platform demands of modern software delivery.