Top 5 Alternatives to EarlGrey for Mobile UI

Introduction and Context

Mobile UI testing on iOS has evolved quickly over the past decade. Early on, Apple’s UIAutomation framework paved the way for scripted interactions. As iOS matured, XCUITest became the official testing framework integrated into Xcode. Around this time, Google released EarlGrey as an open-source project to improve test reliability through robust synchronization. EarlGrey introduced a powerful model for iOS UI tests that reduces flakiness by waiting for the UI to be “idle” before performing actions.

EarlGrey is written for Objective‑C/Swift projects and is licensed under Apache-2.0. It integrates well with modern CI/CD workflows and offers a clear testing vocabulary through GREYMatchers, GREYActions, and GREYAssertions. Many teams adopted EarlGrey because it balances power and simplicity for native iOS, while aligning well with Apple’s tooling. With EarlGrey 2, Google aligned the framework even closer with XCUITest under the hood, while preserving EarlGrey’s signature synchronization and API ergonomics.

Despite these strengths, teams today often need broader platform support, richer language choices, or deeper ecosystem integrations than a single-platform tool can provide. As organizations expand to Android, mobile web, and cross-platform stacks like Flutter, alternative frameworks may better match their test strategy, tooling preferences, and team skills. Below are the top alternatives to consider if you are assessing options beyond EarlGrey.

Overview: The Top 5 Alternatives to EarlGrey

Here are the top five alternatives for EarlGrey:

• Appium

• Appium Flutter Driver

• Espresso

• UI Automator

• XCUITest

Why Look for EarlGrey Alternatives?

• Cross-platform needs: If you test both iOS and Android—or include mobile web—EarlGrey’s iOS-only scope can limit coverage and create tool fragmentation.

• Language flexibility: EarlGrey emphasizes Objective‑C/Swift. Teams that prefer Java, Kotlin, JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, or Ruby may want a framework that supports their primary language.

• Broader ecosystem and plugins: Some organizations need cloud device lab integrations, plugins, or community libraries that are easier to find in larger ecosystems.

• System-level and cross-app automation: EarlGrey focuses on your app’s UI. If you must automate permission dialogs, notifications, or flows across multiple apps, you might need a system-level or driver-based tool.

• Unified test strategy: Large teams often prefer a single framework and coding style to cover native, hybrid, and web content on multiple platforms—reducing maintenance overhead and training costs.

Detailed Breakdown of the Alternatives

1) Appium

Appium is an open-source, cross-platform UI automation framework that uses the WebDriver protocol to drive iOS, Android, and mobile web apps. It is community-led and widely adopted across companies of all sizes. Appium’s driver architecture (especially in Appium 2.x) supports multiple drivers such as XCUITest (iOS) and UiAutomator2 (Android), making it a single gateway for multi-platform automation.

• Platforms: iOS, Android, Mobile Web

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary Tech: WebDriver protocol

• Best For: Teams automating end-to-end flows across browsers and platforms

Core strengths:

• Cross-platform by design: Write tests once with shared patterns and run against iOS, Android, and mobile web with minimal changes.

• Language choice: Client libraries exist in Java, JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Ruby, C#, and more—meeting teams where they are.

• Rich ecosystem and plugins: Appium 2.x supports plugins and custom drivers, opening the door to specialized capabilities (e.g., perform native gestures, device management) and community-driven innovation.

• Cloud device lab support: Works with many device cloud providers, making parallel test execution and massive device coverage easier.

• CI/CD friendly: Fits into modern pipelines, with containerized builds and flexible configuration across environments.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Breadth vs. depth: EarlGrey focuses on reliable, synchronized iOS testing with first-class Objective‑C/Swift APIs. Appium emphasizes breadth—multiple platforms and languages—via drivers such as XCUITest under the hood for iOS.

• Reliability considerations: EarlGrey’s built-in synchronization reduces flakiness on iOS. Appium tests can be similarly stable but often require careful waits, locator strategies, and robust page objects, especially across platforms.

• Team skills: If your team writes Swift and lives in Xcode, EarlGrey feels native. If you want to standardize on one test stack across mobile and web, Appium offers more flexibility.

When to choose Appium:

• You need one framework for iOS, Android, and mobile web.

• Your developers and QA already use WebDriver and want to reuse patterns and libraries.

• You plan to scale tests on device clouds and want a large ecosystem.

2) Appium Flutter Driver

Appium Flutter Driver is a specialized Appium driver that interacts with Flutter apps through the Flutter engine’s semantics tree, giving you more precise access to Flutter-specific widgets and properties. It extends the Appium model to better understand Flutter UI, while still benefiting from the Appium ecosystem and CI/CD integrations.

• Platforms: iOS/Android (Flutter)

• License: Open Source

• Primary Tech: Dart VM service and JSON Wire Protocol/WebDriver concepts via Appium

• Best For: Teams automating cross-platform Flutter applications with Appium

Core strengths:

• Flutter-aware locators: Access widget hierarchies and keys that generic drivers can’t reach as cleanly, improving locator stability.

• Cross-platform coverage for Flutter: One test strategy for both iOS and Android builds of your Flutter app.

• Ecosystem leverage: Use Appium’s language clients, reporting tools, parallelization, and device cloud integrations with a Flutter-aware driver.

• Seamless CI/CD: Integrates into pipelines alongside other Appium tests, enabling unified reporting and orchestration.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Flutter specificity: EarlGrey is great for native iOS, but it does not natively interpret Flutter widget trees. Appium Flutter Driver gives direct access to Flutter elements across both platforms.

• Cross-platform benefit: EarlGrey targets iOS; Appium Flutter Driver helps you test the same Flutter codebase on iOS and Android with one approach.

• Setup differences: EarlGrey fits naturally into Xcode projects. Appium Flutter Driver requires configuring the driver, ensuring compatibility with your Flutter version, and running the correct build variants.

When to choose Appium Flutter Driver:

• Your app is built with Flutter and you want cross-platform tests that understand Flutter widgets.

• You already use Appium and want to extend it to Flutter with minimal tooling changes.

• You need a single test codebase for iOS and Android Flutter targets.

3) Espresso

Espresso is Google’s official Android UI testing framework, part of the AndroidX Test suite. It provides a concise, fluent API in Java/Kotlin and emphasizes synchronization to reduce flakiness, much like EarlGrey does for iOS. Espresso is tightly integrated with Android Studio, Gradle, and the broader Android tooling ecosystem.

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary Tech: Java/Kotlin

• Best For: Teams building native Android apps who want fast, reliable instrumentation tests

Core strengths:

• Fast and reliable on-device execution: Espresso runs inside the app process with tight synchronization, offering stable tests.

• Strong tooling integration: Works seamlessly with Android Studio, Gradle, and Android’s test orchestrators.

• Familiar developer ergonomics: Fluent, idiomatic APIs in Java/Kotlin and extensive community documentation.

• White-box capabilities: Easy access to app internals, test rules, and idling resources for fine-grained control.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Platform focus: EarlGrey is for iOS; Espresso is the Android counterpart with similar synchronization principles.

• Strategy alignment: If your organization uses EarlGrey for iOS and wants a platform-native approach on Android, Espresso is a natural pairing.

• Cross-platform needs: If you need a unified framework for both platforms, Espresso alone won’t solve that; pairing it with EarlGrey means two test stacks. Appium might simplify by unifying.

When to choose Espresso:

• Your team builds primarily for Android and values first-party tooling and stable, fast tests.

• You need in-app synchronization and a tight feedback loop in Android Studio.

• You prefer Kotlin/Java and want deep integration with Android internal testing tools.

4) UI Automator

UI Automator is Google’s Android testing framework for automating interactions across apps and system UI. It complements Espresso by handling scenarios that span beyond a single app process, such as interacting with system dialogs, notifications, or other apps. Many cross-platform frameworks (including Appium’s UiAutomator2 driver) rely on its capabilities under the hood.

• Platforms: Android (system-level)

• License: Open Source

• Primary Tech: Java/Kotlin

• Best For: Teams that must automate cross-app flows or system UI behaviors on Android

Core strengths:

• System-level coverage: Automate permission pop-ups, settings screens, notifications, and flows that Espresso cannot reach easily.

• Complements in-app frameworks: Combine with Espresso or use indirectly through Appium’s UiAutomator2 driver for broader coverage.

• Useful for end-to-end tests: Enable real-world scenarios that cross application boundaries.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Scope difference: EarlGrey focuses on in-app iOS testing with synchronization. UI Automator focuses on Android system-level UI, making it most relevant to Android-specific scenarios.

• Use in a multi-platform stack: If your iOS tests run in EarlGrey, you may still need UI Automator (directly or via Appium) to mirror Android system flows.

• Trade-offs: UI Automator provides reach but may be slower and more brittle than in-app frameworks because it interacts with UI at the system level.

When to choose UI Automator:

• You must automate Android permission dialogs, notifications, or interactions spanning multiple apps.

• You are building a hybrid test strategy using Espresso (in-app) plus UI Automator (system).

• You are using Appium’s UiAutomator2 driver and want to understand or extend system-level capabilities.

5) XCUITest

XCUITest is Apple’s official UI testing framework, built on XCTest and fully integrated into Xcode. It provides high performance and tight integration with the iOS ecosystem, making it a popular choice for teams who want first-party tooling and minimal external dependencies. EarlGrey 2 aligns closely with XCUITest, blending EarlGrey’s synchronization approach with XCUITest’s execution.

• Platforms: iOS

• License: Proprietary (Apple)

• Primary Tech: Swift/Objective‑C

• Best For: iOS teams that prefer first-party frameworks and deep Xcode integration

Core strengths:

• Native integration: Works seamlessly with Xcode, XCTest, and Apple’s simulator/device infrastructure.

• Performance and stability: Efficient execution with tooling that’s built specifically for iOS.

• Clear ecosystem: Documentation, profiling tools, and debugging support are all part of the Apple toolchain.

• CI/CD ready: Works well with Xcode build pipelines and common CI services for Apple platforms.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Overlap: EarlGrey 2 leverages XCUITest and adds synchronization and a distinct test API. If you like EarlGrey’s ergonomics but want to stay within Apple’s official boundaries, XCUITest alone is a straightforward option.

• Trade-offs: EarlGrey’s synchronization model can reduce flakiness with complex asynchronous UIs. Using XCUITest alone may require careful waiting strategies or adopting XCTest expectations and custom utilities.

• Team preference: If your team prioritizes using only first-party Apple frameworks, XCUITest is the closest alternative; if you value EarlGrey’s test DSL and idling resources, you may prefer to keep EarlGrey.

When to choose XCUITest:

• You want a minimal dependency stack centered entirely on Apple tooling.

• You are comfortable writing tests in Swift/Objective‑C with XCTest conventions.

• You value performance and stable integration over additional synchronization features.

Things to Consider Before Choosing an EarlGrey Alternative

• Project scope and platforms:

• Primary programming language:

• App architecture:

• Ease of setup and maintenance:

• Execution speed and stability:

• CI/CD integration:

• Debugging and reporting:

• Locator strategy and synchronization:

• Community and ecosystem:

• Scalability and cost:

Conclusion

EarlGrey remains a strong, open-source choice for iOS UI testing—especially for teams working in Swift/Objective‑C who want reliable synchronization and tight CI/CD alignment. Its design helps reduce flakiness and keeps tests readable and maintainable.

However, testing needs are increasingly multi-platform and multi-technology. If your roadmap includes Android, mobile web, or Flutter, you may gain efficiency by standardizing on a cross-platform framework like Appium. If you prefer official, platform-native tools, pairing Espresso (Android) with XCUITest (iOS) delivers fast, stable tests within each ecosystem. When your scenarios involve Android system UI or cross-app flows, UI Automator fills an important gap. For Flutter apps, the Appium Flutter Driver enables precise, Flutter-aware automation across iOS and Android.

In short:

• Choose Appium when you want one automation strategy across iOS, Android, and mobile web, with broad language choice and device cloud compatibility.

• Choose Appium Flutter Driver when your app is written in Flutter and you need widget-level access on both platforms.

• Choose Espresso for native Android projects that benefit from fast, synchronized, in-IDE test execution.

• Choose UI Automator to automate Android system-level or cross-app flows not covered by in-app frameworks.

• Choose XCUITest if you want first-party iOS tooling, tight Xcode integration, and minimal external dependencies.

EarlGrey is still a capable, modern framework for iOS UI automation. The best alternative depends on your platform mix, language preferences, and the depth of ecosystem support you need. By aligning your tool choice with your app architecture, team skills, and CI/CD strategy, you will maximize stability, coverage, and long-term maintainability.