Top 4 Alternatives to White for Desktop UI

Introduction and Context

White (often known as TestStack.White) emerged from the .NET community as a pragmatic way to automate desktop applications on Windows. Built on top of Microsoft’s UI Automation (UIA) technology, White provided a higher-level API that abstracted many of the low-level complexities involved in driving WPF, WinForms, and other Windows UI frameworks. For many teams, it became the go-to open-source solution for end-to-end desktop UI testing in C#.

Why did White become popular? It offered a simple, code-first approach in C#/.NET, lined up perfectly with Windows-focused engineering stacks, and played nicely with established testing frameworks (e.g., NUnit, xUnit) and CI pipelines. Its object model made it relatively straightforward to find windows and controls, perform actions (clicks, keyboard input), and assert on UI state. Over time, organizations adopted White for:

• Broad coverage of Windows app technologies (WPF, WinForms, classic Win32 controls).

• An approachable API on top of Microsoft UIA.

• Compatibility with modern CI/CD workflows and test runners.

• A permissive open-source model that invited community contributions.

Under the hood, White wrapped key UIA capabilities (control patterns, element discovery, conditions) into a set of typed controls and helpers. It also included windowing helpers, waiting strategies, and keyboard/mouse simulation. However, as Windows UI technologies evolved and UIA3 gained traction, the library began to show its age. While White remains usable and familiar, many teams now seek alternatives that are more actively maintained, offer broader language support, or align with WebDriver/Appium ecosystems.

This article explores four strong alternatives and how they compare, so you can pick the right fit for your team’s needs.

Overview: The Top Alternatives Covered

Here are the top 4 alternatives to White for desktop UI automation on Windows:

• FlaUI

• pywinauto

• WinAppDriver

• Winium

Why Look for White Alternatives?

White still works for many scenarios, but teams often explore alternatives for the following reasons:

• Limited support for newer UIA3 features and modern Windows app types: Out of the box, White may not expose newer accessibility patterns or nuances of modern Windows 10/11 applications as seamlessly as newer frameworks do.

• Maintenance and ecosystem maturity: Community activity has shifted toward newer libraries, reducing the pace of updates, bug fixes, and ecosystem tooling for White.

• Flakiness tied to timing and synchronization: Without careful test design (waiting strategies, robust selectors, and retry logic), tests can be flaky due to dynamic UI timing issues.

• Windows-only and C#/.NET only: Teams that prefer Python or want cross-language flexibility often look for alternatives with broader language support.

• Lack of WebDriver-native workflows: Organizations standardized on Selenium/Appium sometimes prefer tools that speak the WebDriver protocol for consistency across web, mobile, and desktop.

If these pain points affect your team—especially around modern Windows support, language preferences, or WebDriver alignment—evaluating alternatives is sensible.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

FlaUI

What it is and who built it

FlaUI is an open-source UI automation library for Windows that wraps Microsoft UI Automation (UIA2 and UIA3). Created and maintained by contributors in the .NET community, it’s commonly seen as the modern, actively maintained spiritual successor to White. FlaUI is licensed under the MIT License and targets C#/.NET developers.

What makes it different

FlaUI focuses on a clean, modern API with robust support for UIA2 and UIA3, along with practical utilities for element discovery, patterns, and synchronization. It embraces newer Windows UI capabilities and provides better performance and reliability in many scenarios compared to older UIA wrappers.

Core strengths

• Actively maintained and aligned with UIA3: Strong coverage for Windows 10/11 app controls and patterns.

• Clean, consistent API for C#/.NET: Familiar for teams coming from White, but more modern and ergonomic.

• Solid element discovery and waiting strategies: Reduced flakiness when properly designed, thanks to better synchronization and pattern support.

• Strong ecosystem fit: Works with NUnit/xUnit/MSTest, fits cleanly into CI/CD pipelines, and supports common .NET build and test workflows.

• Open-source MIT license: Friendly for enterprise adoption and contribution.

How FlaUI compares to White

• Maturity for modern Windows: FlaUI generally offers more up-to-date UIA3 coverage and better compatibility with Windows 10/11 features than White.

• API design and stability: While both are C#/.NET, FlaUI’s API design is typically considered more consistent and better aligned with current .NET practices.

• Migration: Many test teams find it straightforward to migrate White-based test patterns to FlaUI because concepts like windows, elements, patterns, and waits are similar.

• Community and maintenance: FlaUI has the more active maintenance cadence and community momentum, which translates into faster bug fixes and feature adoption.

When FlaUI shines

• You want a modern, actively maintained .NET replacement for White.

• Your target apps rely on newer UIA3 features or run on the latest Windows builds.

• You value familiar C# development, test frameworks, and DevOps tooling.

pywinauto

What it is and who built it

pywinauto is an open-source Windows GUI automation library for Python, licensed under the BSD License. It’s built and maintained by a community of contributors with a focus on making desktop automation accessible to Python developers and QA engineers. pywinauto provides multiple backends, including UIA and Win32, allowing automation across a wide range of legacy and modern Windows applications.

What makes it different

Unlike White and FlaUI, pywinauto is Python-first. That alone can be a major advantage for teams that prefer Python’s expressiveness, speed of prototyping, and vast ecosystem (pytest, virtual environments, data processing libraries). It’s a strong choice for scripting complex scenarios quickly and for integrating test data generation or analysis directly in Python.

Core strengths

• Python-native workflow: Rapid scripting, friendly for data-driven testing, and easy integration with pytest or other Python test runners.

• Multiple automation backends: UIA for modern apps and Win32 for classic controls, expanding coverage across application types.

• Rich introspection utilities: Useful helpers for exploring control trees and troubleshooting selectors, which helps reduce flakiness when combined with good waits.

• Easy CI/CD integration: Python-based tests are straightforward to run in Windows server agents and containers.

• Open-source BSD license: Permissive licensing for enterprise use.

How pywinauto compares to White

• Language and ecosystem: While White is squarely in C#/.NET, pywinauto brings desktop UI automation to Python—a major shift that can simplify scripting and onboarding for Python-skilled teams.

• Backends and compatibility: pywinauto’s dual backend approach (UIA and Win32) covers both modern and legacy apps, similar in spirit to White’s goals but with more flexibility in a Python context.

• Learning curve: If your team is new to Python, there’s an initial adjustment. For Python-fluent teams, productivity can be very high.

• Maintenance and activity: pywinauto is actively maintained by an engaged community, with documentation and examples improving continuously.

When pywinauto shines

• Your QA/Dev team prefers Python for test automation, data generation, and tooling.

• You need to automate a mix of legacy Win32 and modern UIA-based apps.

• You want rapid prototyping and shorter cycle times for proof-of-concept tests.

WinAppDriver

What it is and who built it

Windows Application Driver (WinAppDriver) is a Microsoft-backed, open-source (MIT) driver that enables UI test automation of Windows applications via the WebDriver protocol. It can be used directly or through Appium-based test frameworks. Although Microsoft has reduced active feature development, WinAppDriver remains in use across organizations standardized on WebDriver tooling.

What makes it different

WinAppDriver speaks the WebDriver wire protocol, which is familiar to teams using Selenium or Appium for web and mobile automation. This allows you to write desktop UI tests in a variety of languages (C#, Java, Python, JavaScript, and more) and reuse patterns like Page Object Models, parallel execution with Grid, and existing reporting frameworks.

Core strengths

• WebDriver compatibility: Aligns desktop automation with a broader Selenium/Appium toolchain.

• Multi-language support: Choose from many languages and frameworks—not just C#.

• UWP and classic app coverage: Designed to automate Windows 10/11 UWP and classic desktop apps.

• Familiar ecosystem for web/mobile testers: Leverage existing Appium experience, CI configuration, and test runners.

• Open-source MIT license: Enterprise-friendly licensing and community contributions.

How WinAppDriver compares to White

• Protocol vs. library: White is a .NET library that directly wraps UIA. WinAppDriver is a system-level driver that exposes WebDriver endpoints. This architectural difference influences how tests are structured and run.

• Language flexibility: WinAppDriver offers more language choices, while White is C#/.NET only.

• Maintenance status: Microsoft’s reduced active development means fewer new features relative to evolving Windows UI patterns. However, the WebDriver model remains attractive for teams invested in Selenium/Appium.

• Tooling continuity: If your organization runs a Selenium Grid or Appium-based pipeline, WinAppDriver allows you to slot desktop automation into that same ecosystem.

When WinAppDriver shines

• Your organization standardizes on WebDriver/Appium and wants consistent patterns across web, mobile, and desktop.

• You value language flexibility and remote execution infrastructure.

• You need to integrate with existing reporting dashboards, parallelization, and CI/CD practices already tuned for WebDriver.

Winium

What it is and who built it

Winium is an open-source driver for automating Windows desktop applications via the Selenium/WebDriver protocol. It appeared before WinAppDriver gained traction and was popular in teams that wanted to reuse Selenium skills for desktop testing. Development activity has been limited in recent years, and it is considered less active compared to newer alternatives.

What makes it different

Like WinAppDriver, Winium aligns with WebDriver concepts, which is attractive to teams coming from Selenium. It offers a familiar approach to locators, sessions, and remote execution, allowing some reuse of automation patterns and infrastructure.

Core strengths

• WebDriver familiarity: Easy onboarding for Selenium-experienced teams.

• Multi-language possibilities: Because it follows the WebDriver model, you can use many client libraries.

• CI/CD alignment: Fits into pipelines designed around Selenium Grid and similar tooling.

• Open source: Accessible for experimentation and niche use cases.

How Winium compares to White

• Maintenance and currency: Winium has seen limited maintenance, which can impact stability, compatibility with newer Windows versions, and ecosystem tooling. White, while older, has historically had a steadier user base; however, FlaUI has generally superseded White in the .NET space.

• WebDriver alignment: Compared with White’s direct UIA approach, Winium’s driver model is attractive if you want to reuse Selenium practices. But given its lower activity, many teams now prefer WinAppDriver for WebDriver compatibility.

• Practicality for new projects: For greenfield efforts, you’ll likely favor FlaUI (for .NET) or WinAppDriver (for WebDriver) over Winium unless you have a specific legacy requirement.

When Winium shines

• You are maintaining an existing Winium-based test suite and need continuity with minimal changes.

• You have specialized environments where Winium is already integrated and stable.

• You want a WebDriver-like approach but cannot adopt WinAppDriver for specific reasons.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a White Alternative

Selecting the right tool depends on your application stack, team skills, and operational constraints. Weigh the following factors:

• Application technologies and scope

• Language and ecosystem fit

• Ease of setup and learning curve

• Selector robustness and synchronization

• Execution speed and stability

• CI/CD integration

• Debugging and diagnostics

• Community and support

• Scalability and maintainability

• Licensing and cost

Putting It All Together: Which Alternative Should You Choose?

To help map needs to tools, consider these typical scenarios:

• You want a modern, actively maintained C#/.NET library similar to White:

• You prefer Python for test automation and rapid prototyping:

• You are standardized on Selenium/Appium and want consistent patterns across web, mobile, and desktop:

• You already use Winium and need continuity:

Conclusion

White played a pivotal role in mainstreaming Windows desktop UI automation for .NET teams. Its approachable, open-source design made it a standard for many QA organizations. While it remains usable, the Windows ecosystem and UI Automation capabilities have matured, and newer tools often deliver better support for modern apps, smoother APIs, and richer ecosystems.

• If you want a modern, drop-in .NET experience with active maintenance, FlaUI is the strongest White alternative today.

• If your team thrives in Python and needs fast iteration and data-driven testing, pywinauto is a compelling choice.

• If you are invested in the WebDriver/Appium model and prefer cross-language flexibility with consistent tooling, WinAppDriver aligns well—just be aware of its reduced active development.

• If your tests already rely on Winium and are stable, you can keep them running, but plan a migration path for future-proofing.

Ultimately, the best tool depends on your application stack, team skills, and operational goals. Start by piloting two candidates against a representative slice of your UI—complex dialogs, dynamic controls, and end-to-end flows. Measure stability, execution time, and maintenance effort. The right alternative should minimize flakiness, fit naturally into your CI/CD, and keep your test suite maintainable as both your app and Windows evolve.