Top 6 Alternatives to Geb for Groovy Testing

Introduction: Where Geb Fits in the Testing Story

Geb emerged from the Groovy ecosystem to streamline browser automation by combining the power of Selenium WebDriver with a fluent, Groovy-based DSL. It aligned naturally with Spock—Groovy’s popular testing and specification framework—and fit well into Gradle- and Maven-based builds. That made Geb particularly attractive to JVM teams that wanted expressive tests, strong page object patterns, and seamless CI/CD integration without leaving their familiar toolchain.

Geb’s popularity grew because it offered:

• An expressive DSL for modeling pages, modules, and browser interactions

• Built-in waits and a “navigator” API for dealing with dynamic DOMs

• First-class integration with Spock and JUnit

• Compatibility across major browsers via Selenium

• Open-source licensing (Apache-2.0) and strong alignment with modern DevOps workflows

In many organizations, Geb is still a reliable workhorse for web end-to-end (E2E) testing when teams prefer code-driven test suites in Groovy. However, the testing landscape has expanded. Teams now juggle APIs, web, mobile, and desktop apps, and many want lower maintenance, richer analytics, and options beyond WebDriver. This shift has spurred interest in alternatives that promise faster authoring, broader platform coverage, and advanced capabilities such as self-healing and visual validation.

This guide walks through six well-regarded alternatives to Geb, what makes them stand out, and how they compare—so you can decide what best matches your team’s goals, skills, and constraints.

Overview: Top 6 Alternatives to Geb

Here are the top 6 alternatives for Geb:

• Katalon Platform (Studio)

• Mabl

• Repeato

• Spock

• TestCafe Studio

• Waldo

Why Look for Geb Alternatives?

Geb remains a strong choice for Groovy-centric teams, but you might consider alternatives if you encounter the following:

• Web-only scope: Geb targets web UI testing. If you also need first-class support for mobile, desktop, or API testing with unified reporting, you’ll need to stitch together additional tools.

• Maintenance overhead: Code-driven WebDriver tests can become flaky if locators and waits aren’t rigorously managed. As apps evolve, keeping page objects, modules, and selectors in sync takes time.

• Skill constraints: Geb requires Groovy and general coding proficiency. Non-developer testers may prefer low-code or no-code authoring to decrease ramp-up time and increase test coverage.

• Reporting and analytics: While Geb integrates with CI/CD and can produce reports, some teams need advanced built-in dashboards, trend analytics, and actionable insights without custom plumbing.

• Grid and execution complexity: Scaling browser runs (parallelization, cross-browser, headless, cloud device labs) often adds infrastructure complexity. Some platforms offer managed execution to reduce this burden.

With that context, let’s explore the six alternatives, how they differ, and when they might be the better fit.

Katalon Platform (Studio)

What it is and what makes it different

Katalon Platform (often referred to as Katalon Studio within the suite) is a commercial, low-code automation solution built by Katalon. It packages web, mobile, API, and desktop testing capabilities into one environment. While it provides a recorder for rapid test creation, it also supports scripting in Groovy/Java, giving Geb users a familiar language path with additional low-code convenience.

Katalon distinguishes itself with an all-in-one experience: test authoring, object repositories, data-driven testing, analytics, and CI/CD hooks are available without composing multiple open-source pieces.

• Platforms: Web, Mobile, API, Desktop

• License: Commercial with a free tier

• Primary tech: Groovy/Java with JavaScript support

Notable strengths

• All-in-one coverage across web, mobile, API, and desktop

• Low-code authoring with a recorder plus the option to script in Groovy

• Built-in analytics and reporting for trend analysis and root-cause insights

• CI/CD integrations for pipeline execution at scale

• Object repository and self-healing support to reduce locator churn

• Data-driven testing and parameterization out of the box

How it compares to Geb

• Language familiarity: Katalon offers Groovy scripting, easing transition from Geb.

• Scope: It covers more than web—API, mobile, and desktop—reducing tool sprawl.

• Maintenance: Built-in self-healing and object management can reduce flakiness.

• Flexibility: Geb offers full-code freedom in Groovy; Katalon trades some flexibility for speed and convenience inside a managed environment.

• Cost: Geb is open source; Katalon is commercial with a free tier, so budgeting is a consideration.

Best for

Teams automating end-to-end flows across browsers and platforms who want both low-code speed and Groovy-friendly extensibility in a single product.

Mabl

What it is and what makes it different

Mabl is a commercial, SaaS-first platform developed by mabl. It focuses on low-code web and API testing with AI-assisted, self-healing capabilities. Its managed cloud approach minimizes infrastructure concerns and emphasizes quick authoring, smart waits, and resilient selectors that adapt as your app changes.

• Platforms: Web and API

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: Low-code platform (not Groovy-based)

Notable strengths

• Self-healing tests reduce locator maintenance over time

• Managed cloud execution with parallel runs and environment management

• Rich analytics and visual change detection for UI regressions

• CI/CD integrations for continuous testing workflows

• Low-code authoring accelerates onboarding for non-developers

How it compares to Geb

• Authoring model: Mabl is low-code first; Geb is code-first in Groovy.

• Stability: Mabl’s AI-assisted healing can reduce flakiness; Geb requires careful locator design and waits.

• Infrastructure: Mabl’s cloud eliminates the need to maintain Selenium grids; Geb leaves execution strategy to you.

• Platform scope: Mabl covers web and API but not native mobile or desktop. Geb focuses on web UI.

• Cost and lock-in: Mabl is commercial and SaaS; Geb is open source with full control in your repo.

Best for

Teams that want fast authoring, fewer infrastructure duties, and robust analytics for web and API suites—especially if they want to reduce ongoing test maintenance.

Repeato

What it is and what makes it different

Repeato is a commercial tool from Repeato that focuses on mobile UI testing for iOS and Android. It uses computer vision (CV) to identify UI elements, which can be more resilient to DOM or accessibility identifier changes in certain app designs. It emphasizes codeless creation, allowing testers to record and parameterize flows without code.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: Codeless with computer vision

Notable strengths

• CV-based identification can be resilient to UI changes compared to traditional locators

• Codeless authoring makes it approachable for non-developers

• Designed specifically for mobile app testing

• Integrates with CI/CD and supports modern mobile workflows

• Reduces the need for platform-specific driver setup

How it compares to Geb

• Platform focus: Repeato is mobile-first; Geb is web-focused. If your primary need is native mobile, Repeato aligns better.

• Authoring: Repeato emphasizes no-code with CV; Geb is code-centric using Groovy and WebDriver.

• Stability: CV can handle visual changes gracefully; however, CV approaches may require careful baseline management and device consistency.

• Ecosystem: Geb integrates tightly with Groovy/Spock; Repeato fits into mobile pipelines and device/cloud testing ecosystems.

Best for

Teams whose main target is native mobile UI testing and who want a codeless, CV-based approach to improve resilience and reduce setup overhead.

Spock

What it is and what makes it different

Spock is an open-source test framework for the JVM (Apache-2.0), originally created by Peter Niederwieser and maintained by the Spock community. It brings a behavior-driven, specification style to Java and Groovy projects with data tables, powerful parameterization, and expressive assertions. While Spock is not itself a browser automation framework, it often serves as the test runner and specification layer for integration and unit tests—and can also drive UI via Selenium or other libraries.

• Platforms: JVM

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Groovy

Notable strengths

• Readable, BDD-ish specifications that bridge devs, QA, and business stakeholders

• Strong parameterization and data-driven testing

• Rich mocking/stubbing facilities for JVM services

• Integrates well with JUnit platforms, Gradle, and Maven

• Familiar to teams already using Groovy

How it compares to Geb

• Role in the stack: Geb is a browser automation DSL; Spock is a test framework. Many teams use them together.

• Alternative direction: If your pain is UI flakiness and slow E2E cycles, moving more coverage into Spock-powered unit and integration tests can reduce reliance on fragile UI tests.

• Flexibility: Spock can orchestrate UI testing via Selenium if you still need some E2E coverage, but it’s not a codeless UI tool.

• Cost and control: Both are open source and integrate well with CI/CD.

Best for

Cross-functional teams practicing behavior-driven development who want clearer specs and stronger service-level test coverage, whether or not they retain a thinner UI layer.

TestCafe Studio

What it is and what makes it different

TestCafe Studio is the commercial, codeless IDE variant of the open-source TestCafe framework, developed by DevExpress. TestCafe runs tests directly in the browser using a proxy-based approach rather than WebDriver, which can simplify setup and reduce certain categories of flakiness. The Studio edition adds a recorder, visual authoring, and an integrated environment for teams that prefer less code.

• Platforms: Web

• License: Commercial (with an open-source core framework available separately)

• Primary tech: JavaScript/TypeScript at the core; Studio adds codeless authoring

Notable strengths

• No WebDriver dependency; simpler setup and often more stable auto-waits

• Codeless recording and assertions in the Studio IDE

• Built-in parallelization and cross-browser support (including headless)

• CI/CD-friendly with command-line execution and reporters

• Strong ecosystem around the JavaScript/TypeScript toolchain

How it compares to Geb

• Architecture: TestCafe’s proxy-based model can reduce WebDriver-related issues and waiting complexities that Geb users may encounter.

• Authoring: Studio provides codeless creation; Geb is code-first in Groovy.

• Language: TestCafe’s core is JS/TS; Geb is Groovy. Team skill sets will likely determine fit.

• Scope: Both focus on web UI. TestCafe Studio offers an integrated IDE experience; Geb integrates into standard JVM workflows.

Best for

Web teams that want a codeless or low-code experience, prefer the JavaScript ecosystem, and want to minimize WebDriver maintenance.

Waldo

What it is and what makes it different

Waldo is a commercial, no-code mobile testing platform developed by Waldo. It focuses on recording user flows for iOS and Android apps and running them in the cloud. Waldo abstracts device management and offers quick, non-intrusive test creation—particularly useful for product teams and QA engineers who need frequent validation without maintaining scripts.

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: No-code recorder with cloud execution

Notable strengths

• No-code creation shortens the path from idea to test

• Cloud execution eliminates device lab setup and maintenance

• CI/CD integrations support release pipelines and PR validation

• Visual-first feedback helps teams quickly identify regressions

• Scales with team size and app complexity without additional scripting

How it compares to Geb

• Platform: Waldo is mobile-only; Geb is web-only. If your priority is native mobile apps, Waldo aligns better.

• Authoring: Waldo is no-code; Geb requires Groovy code and WebDriver mastery.

• Maintenance: Waldo’s managed cloud removes device/grid concerns. Geb leaves execution infrastructure decisions to your team.

• Strategy: Waldo can complement a web-focused stack or serve as the primary mobile solution if you’re shifting away from code-heavy UI suites.

Best for

Teams that want quick, scalable, and low-maintenance mobile UI testing, particularly where non-developers contribute heavily to test creation.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Geb Alternative

Before switching (or adding) a new tool, weigh the following:

• Project scope and platforms

• Language and skills

• Ease of setup and maintenance

• Execution speed and stability

• CI/CD integration

• Debugging and observability

• Reporting and analytics

• Community and support

• Scalability

• Cost and licensing

• Governance and compliance

Mapping these criteria to your must-haves will quickly narrow the field.

Conclusion: Geb Still Works—But the Best Fit Depends on Your Goals

Geb remains a solid, open-source choice for Groovy-first teams needing code-driven web UI automation that integrates beautifully with Spock, Gradle, and established JVM workflows. If your team is comfortable with Groovy and wants the control that comes with a code-centric DSL, Geb can continue to serve well—especially when paired with good page object discipline, stable selectors, and robust CI practices.

However, modern testing needs often stretch beyond web-only coverage and code-heavy authoring:

• If you want a Groovy-friendly path with broader coverage and built-in analytics, Katalon Platform (Studio) provides an all-in-one alternative with both low-code and scripting options.

• If reducing test flakiness and infrastructure work is paramount for web and API testing, Mabl’s self-healing and managed cloud model can accelerate delivery.

• For mobile-first pipelines, Repeato’s CV-based approach and Waldo’s no-code, cloud execution each offer streamlined test creation and maintenance for iOS and Android apps.

• If you favor the JavaScript ecosystem and want to avoid WebDriver, TestCafe Studio delivers a codeless IDE and a stable architecture that simplifies setup.

• If your main pain is slow, flaky E2E tests, consider shifting more coverage to service-level tests with Spock, keeping a lean UI layer for critical paths.

In many organizations, the winning approach is hybrid: keep Geb or another code-based tool for targeted scenarios requiring deep customization, adopt a low-code platform for broader regression coverage, and leverage device/browser clouds to scale reliably. Platforms such as widely used device/browser clouds can further simplify cross-browser and cross-device execution and help reduce maintenance overhead.

The best alternative is the one that meets your team where it is—skills, stack, and scope—while moving you closer to stable, fast feedback. Evaluate with a short proof of concept, measure authoring speed and maintenance effort, and pick the toolset that sustainably supports your product’s pace.