Top 6 Alternatives to Cucumber for Gherkin + Multiple Testing

Introduction: Where Cucumber Came From and Why It Matters

Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) emerged in the mid-2000s as an evolution of Test-Driven Development (TDD), aiming to bring developers, QA, and business stakeholders onto the same page with a shared language for specifying behavior. Cucumber grew out of this movement around 2008–2009, offering a practical framework to express acceptance criteria in plain language using Gherkin (“Given/When/Then”). That single innovation—tests written as readable specifications—made Cucumber one of the most recognizable BDD tools.

Cucumber’s core components are straightforward:

• Gherkin feature files that describe scenarios in business-friendly language

• Step definitions that bind those scenarios to executable code

• Hooks and configuration for setup/teardown

• Runners that integrate with popular ecosystems (e.g., JUnit, TestNG, JavaScript test runners) to execute tests in CI/CD

Over time, Cucumber expanded across languages and platforms (Web and API), embraced open source (MIT license), and gained extensive tooling around reporting, parallel execution, and integrations. Teams appreciate that Cucumber:

• Makes specifications readable and shareable across roles

• Encourages collaboration and living documentation

• Works with multiple stacks and runners

• Covers both Web and API testing

However, the landscape of testing has broadened. Teams now deal with microservices, fast-moving UI frameworks, mobile-first roadmaps, and design systems. Some are finding that while Cucumber remains powerful, it can introduce extra layers of abstraction and verbosity that slow certain workflows. As a result, many organizations are considering tools that target specific pain points: visual diffs for UIs, contract testing for services, and low-code/no-code platforms to speed up end-to-end (E2E) coverage.

This article explores six notable alternatives to Cucumber—each addressing a different slice of modern testing needs—so you can assess whether a more specialized tool fits better than a general-purpose BDD approach.

Overview: Top 6 Alternatives We’ll Cover

Here are the top six alternatives to Cucumber for Gherkin + multiple testing use cases:

• Happo

• Mabl

• Pact

• Repeato

• TestCafe Studio

• Waldo

Why Look for Cucumber Alternatives?

Cucumber is still widely used and respected. That said, teams often seek alternatives due to one or more of these practical challenges:

• Extra abstraction and maintenance overhead

• Verbosity and duplication

• Stakeholder engagement may wane over time

• Debugging complexity across layers

• Fit for specialized needs

• Test execution speed and CI feedback

If any of these resonate, the following alternatives may align better with your goals, stack, and organizational rhythms.

Alternative 1: Happo

Happo is a visual regression testing tool tailored for web component UIs. It captures snapshots of components/screens and compares them across commits to surface pixel-level diffs. This shifts the focus from behavior expressed in steps to visual accuracy of what users actually see.

• Platforms: Web (Components)

• License: Commercial

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

What makes it different:

• Emphasis on component and UI-level visuals rather than scenario-based behavior

• Tight feedback loop for front-end changes in CI

• Minimal scripting compared with full E2E flows

Core strengths:

• Captures visual regressions with high fidelity via snapshot diffs

• Fits naturally into component-driven development and design systems

• Clear, reviewable diffs reduce ambiguity in UI changes

• Scales well in CI with parallelism for large component libraries

• Low friction for PR workflows (approve a diff, or update the baseline)

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Requires maintaining visual baselines and updating them intentionally

• Dynamic content and animations can cause false positives unless stabilized

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber focuses on behavior and acceptance criteria; Happo focuses on appearance

• Happo does not use Gherkin or step definitions; it’s not a BDD tool

• If your primary pain points are about catching unintended UI changes rather than describing behavior, Happo can be a faster, more targeted solution

• You may still pair visual testing (Happo) with API or end-to-end tests as needed

Alternative 2: Mabl

Mabl is a low-code, AI-assisted platform for end-to-end web and API testing. It provides a SaaS-first experience with self-healing selectors, intelligent waits, and analytics to reduce flakiness and maintenance overhead.

• Platforms: Web + API

• License: Commercial

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

What makes it different:

• Low-code modeling of flows with self-healing capabilities

• Strong emphasis on stability, CI integration, and faster authoring

• Built-in web and API test coverage within one platform

Core strengths:

• Self-healing element locators and smart waits help reduce brittle tests

• Unified Web + API coverage simplifies end-to-end assertions

• Rich reporting, dashboards, and insights for quick triage

• Cloud execution, parallel runs, and straightforward CI/CD integrations

• Data-driven testing and reusable components accelerate authoring

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Commercial cost and potential vendor lock-in

• Poorly structured tests can still be flaky or hard to maintain

• Requires up-front setup and workflow definition to maximize value

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber emphasizes human-readable Gherkin and collaborative specification; Mabl emphasizes low-code speed and maintenance via AI assistance

• Mabl does not use Gherkin; tests are created via recorder and platform-specific constructs

• If you want to reduce code overhead and speed up E2E coverage, Mabl can be more efficient; if preserving living documentation is critical, Cucumber remains stronger

Alternative 3: Pact

Pact is a consumer-driven contract testing tool for HTTP and message-based services. It helps teams validate that services adhere to contracts expected by their consumers without relying on full end-to-end environments.

• Platforms: HTTP/Message

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Best for: Teams requiring automation in consumer-driven contract testing

What makes it different:

• Focused on service boundaries rather than UI or full end-to-end flows

• Offers fast, isolated tests that catch integration mismatches early

• Strong fit for microservices and event-driven architectures

Core strengths:

• Detects breaking API and message contract changes before integration phases

• Supports multiple languages and ecosystems

• Fast feedback loops at the unit/integration level

• Scales well with many services by reducing reliance on end-to-end test environments

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Niche applicability: it’s not a replacement for UI or full E2E tests

• Requires disciplined collaboration between producers and consumers

• Often needs complementary testing (UI, system, or exploratory)

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber is an acceptance-level BDD tool; Pact is about producer/consumer contracts

• Pact does not use Gherkin; it uses contract definitions and verifications

• If your main bottleneck is service integration complexity, Pact can reduce end-to-end test load and shorten feedback cycles; for expressing business scenarios in plain language, Cucumber is still the better fit

Alternative 4: Repeato

Repeato is a codeless mobile UI testing tool for iOS and Android that uses computer vision to interact with apps. By targeting what appears on the screen, it aims to be resilient to certain UI structure changes.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Teams automating mobile end-to-end flows with minimal coding

What makes it different:

• Computer-vision-driven interactions reduce dependency on accessibility identifiers or deep UI hierarchies

• Focuses on mobile gestures and device-specific behaviors

• Offers a recorder-style workflow for rapid test creation

Core strengths:

• Code-free authoring accelerates initial coverage for mobile apps

• CV-based approach can be resilient to minor UI changes

• Integrates with CI/CD for continuous mobile regression testing

• Reusable steps and test assets help manage maintenance

• Parallel execution shortens feedback cycles on real or virtual devices

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Dynamic or highly animated UIs may still require careful stabilization

• As with any codeless tool, poorly structured flows can be fragile

• Some setup and governance are necessary for sustainable suites

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber is cross-domain and BDD-oriented; Repeato is mobile-first and codeless

• Repeato does not use Gherkin; tests are modeled visually and executed on devices

• If your biggest gap is iOS/Android coverage with fast authoring, Repeato is compelling; if you need living documentation across web and API, Cucumber’s Gherkin still has an edge

Alternative 5: TestCafe Studio

TestCafe Studio is the commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe for web UI testing. It runs tests directly in browsers without relying on WebDriver, simplifying setup and often improving stability for modern SPAs.

• Platforms: Web

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Teams automating browser-based E2E tests with a focus on speed and stability

What makes it different:

• No WebDriver dependency; uses a proxy-based approach to control the browser

• Codeless recorder and IDE streamline test creation and debugging

• Strong support for modern front-end frameworks and single-page apps

Core strengths:

• Automatic waits and smart synchronization reduce flaky timing issues

• Cross-browser runs with headless options for faster CI feedback

• Built-in recorder, assertion builder, and debugging tools

• Parallel execution and CI/CD integration for scalability

• Network request mocking and role management simplify complex scenarios

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Commercial licensing for the Studio IDE

• While codeless is accessible, large suites still require thoughtful structure

• Custom extensibility may be more constrained than pure code-driven approaches

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber focuses on BDD with Gherkin; TestCafe Studio focuses on streamlined web UI automation without Gherkin

• If you want less ceremony and more immediate E2E coverage, TestCafe Studio reduces boilerplate

• If cross-functional specification and plain-language scenarios are a must, Cucumber remains more aligned

Alternative 6: Waldo

Waldo is a no-code mobile testing platform for iOS and Android. It provides a cloud-based recorder and execution environment, enabling teams to create, run, and maintain mobile E2E tests with minimal scripting.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Best for: Teams that need scalable mobile E2E coverage without writing code

What makes it different:

• Fully no-code approach focused on mobile user flows

• Cloud-first execution with easy scaling across devices

• Collaborative features suitable for product and QA teams

Core strengths:

• Quick test creation via recorder and UI-driven workflows

• Cloud device execution, video capture, and logs aid triage

• CI/CD integration for continuous mobile checks

• Flake reduction techniques and stability tooling

• Collaboration and review workflows support larger teams

Considerations and trade-offs:

• Vendor lock-in and commercial cost

• Complex or highly dynamic mobile UIs still need careful modeling

• Not a drop-in replacement for API or contract coverage

How it compares to Cucumber:

• Cucumber is BDD-first, multi-platform; Waldo is mobile-first and no-code

• Waldo does not use Gherkin; flows are modeled visually

• If rapid mobile coverage is your primary goal, Waldo can outpace BDD authoring; if shared, text-based specifications are crucial, Cucumber holds the advantage

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Cucumber Alternative

Before you pivot (or augment) your stack, weigh these factors:

• Project scope and test pyramid

• Need for Gherkin and living documentation

• Language and ecosystem support

• Ease of setup and authoring speed

• Execution speed and parallelization

• CI/CD integration and environment readiness

• Test data and environment management

• Debugging, reporting, and traceability

• Community, support, and longevity

• Scalability and cost

• Vendor lock-in and exportability

• Security and compliance

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Fit for Modern Teams

Cucumber remains a cornerstone of BDD and acceptance testing: open source, widely adopted, and excellent for making specifications readable across roles. Its Gherkin-based workflows are still the gold standard when teams truly collaborate around living documentation.

But the testing landscape has diversified, and so have team needs:

• If your pain point is unintended UI changes, a visual regression tool like Happo can surface issues faster than behavior-driven steps.

• If you want to accelerate web and API E2E coverage without heavy coding, a low-code platform like Mabl can reduce maintenance and speed feedback.

• If microservices integration is your bottleneck, Pact’s consumer-driven contracts can shrink the need for slow, brittle end-to-end tests.

• If mobile coverage is the priority, Repeato (computer vision) and Waldo (no-code mobile) provide fast, scalable paths to testing on iOS and Android.

• If you need efficient, codeless web UI automation, TestCafe Studio offers modern browser support and strong stability without the complexity of WebDriver.

In practice, many high-performing teams mix and match:

• Use Pact to harden service contracts and reduce E2E load

• Use Happo to protect design systems and components

• Use a low-code/no-code E2E tool (Mabl, TestCafe Studio, Repeato, or Waldo) for rapid coverage and reliable CI feedback

• Keep Cucumber when human-readable specs and shared understanding are central to your process

Finally, consider pairing your chosen tools with cloud execution platforms—browser grids, mobile device farms, and CI orchestrators—to scale reliably and speed up feedback. The best stack is the one that optimizes feedback cycles, reduces brittleness, and meets your team where they are—technically and culturally.

By aligning tool choice with your most pressing testing gaps, you can keep the strengths of Cucumber where they matter while adopting specialized alternatives that better fit today’s web, API, and mobile realities.