Top 7 Alternatives to EarlGrey for Objective‑C/Swift Testing

Introduction and Context

EarlGrey is Google’s open-source UI testing framework for iOS, released to the community to help teams write reliable, deterministic tests in Objective‑C and Swift. Its origin story mirrors many modern testing tools: internal adoption at scale (within Google’s iOS apps) led to a polished set of synchronization and interaction primitives, and then an open-source release under the Apache-2.0 license brought those capabilities to the wider iOS ecosystem.

What made EarlGrey popular were its core principles and tight integration with the way iOS apps operate. It builds on top of XCTest, adding robust synchronization with UI events, animations, and network activity so tests wait intelligently. It offers clear, readable assertions and matchers, works well within Xcode workflows, and integrates with CI/CD via xcodebuild or other runners. Over time, EarlGrey 2.0 also embraced aspects of Apple’s own UI testing stack, enabling closer interoperability with XCUITest while retaining EarlGrey’s signature synchronization guarantees.

As iOS testing has matured, teams have diversified their approaches. Some want to reduce test flakiness further, some prefer codeless options for faster test creation, while others are prioritizing cross-platform strategies that include web, API, and mobile in one workflow. That’s why many teams are exploring alternatives—either to replace EarlGrey entirely or to complement it as part of a broader, layered testing strategy.

Overview: The Top 7 Alternatives to EarlGrey

Here are the top 7 alternatives for EarlGrey:

• XCUITest

• Repeato

• Waldo

• SnapshotTesting (Point-Free)

• Mabl

• TestCafe Studio

• LoadRunner

These options span native iOS UI frameworks, codeless mobile tools, snapshot testing, and broader test automation and performance testing platforms. Which one is “best” depends on the specific gaps you aim to fill: native device control, faster authoring, visual stability, cross-platform coverage, or performance under load.

Why Look for EarlGrey Alternatives?

Even though EarlGrey remains a strong choice for iOS UI testing, teams often evaluate other options for the following reasons:

• Desire for codeless or low-code authoring

• Need for cross-platform automation

• Flakiness in complex apps

• Advanced reporting and analytics

• Device cloud and scalability

• Specialized testing types

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

1) XCUITest

XCUITest is Apple’s official UI testing framework for iOS, built into Xcode and powered by XCTest. It’s a first-party solution that gives you deep integration with the simulator, device automation, and Apple’s tooling ecosystem. Although it’s proprietary under Apple’s license, it is widely adopted because it’s native, fast, and well-aligned with Apple’s platform direction.

Key strengths:

• First-party integration with Xcode and XCTest, including xcresult artifacts, parallel testing, and stable build tooling.

• Swift/Objective‑C support with a familiar API surface for iOS developers.

• Strong device and simulator control with access to system events and realistic app interactions.

• Works well with CI/CD (xcodebuild, Xcode Cloud, or custom pipelines).

• Good debugging signals: activity logs, attachments, and screenshots enhance test triage.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Similarities: Both are code-centric, run inside Apple’s ecosystem, and integrate tightly with XCTest and CI/CD.

• Differences: EarlGrey emphasizes built-in synchronization to reduce flakiness, while XCUITest offers first-party stability and broader compatibility with iOS features. Some teams find EarlGrey’s synchronization model reduces timing brittleness; others prefer staying purely within Apple’s official framework for longevity and ecosystem support.

• Choose XCUITest if you want the most native, officially supported approach and plan to invest in code-based UI tests aligned with Apple’s tooling.

2) Repeato

Repeato is a commercial, codeless mobile UI testing solution for iOS and Android that uses computer vision (CV) to identify elements visually rather than relying entirely on accessibility identifiers. This makes tests more resilient to certain UI refactors and offers a more visual, test-authoring experience.

Key strengths:

• Computer vision-based selectors can be resilient to UI structure changes and view hierarchy shifts.

• Codeless recording and editing make it easier for non-developers to author tests rapidly.

• Cross-platform mobile support (iOS and Android) enables a unified workflow for mobile teams.

• Integrates with CI/CD and supports modern test automation workflows.

• Execution and maintenance can be centralized for broader team collaboration.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Repeato vs. EarlGrey: Repeato minimizes code and shortens authoring time, while EarlGrey is code-centric and requires iOS development skills. EarlGrey can be more precise at the API level, whereas Repeato’s CV approach may be more robust to minor UI changes.

• Consider Repeato if you want faster onboarding for QA and product stakeholders, cross-platform coverage, and lower maintenance of locator strategies in highly visual apps.

3) Waldo

Waldo is a commercial, no-code mobile testing platform for iOS and Android. It focuses on recording user flows and running them in the cloud, making it straightforward to create and scale tests without writing Objective‑C or Swift.

Key strengths:

• No-code, recorder-style test creation targeted at mobile apps.

• Cloud execution for parallel runs, device coverage, and quick feedback cycles.

• Integrations with CI/CD systems to fit into continuous testing pipelines.

• Centralized reporting with videos, logs, and insights to streamline debugging.

• Good for teams that want to expand test authorship beyond developers.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Waldo vs. EarlGrey: Waldo abstracts away code and device setup, while EarlGrey gives developers granular control with code-level tests. Waldo’s cloud focus is ideal for scalability and visibility; EarlGrey shines for teams comfortable with Xcode-based workflows who need deterministic, code-driven tests.

• Choose Waldo if your priority is speed of authoring, cloud scalability, and enabling non-developers to contribute test coverage.

4) SnapshotTesting (Point‑Free)

SnapshotTesting by Point‑Free is an open-source toolkit (MIT license) for Swift that enables snapshot assertions across a variety of data types, including UI views. By capturing reference snapshots (images for UI or textual representations for structs and other values), it helps catch regressions in visual layout and rendering.

Key strengths:

• Lightweight and focused: excellent for verifying UI changes and guarding against visual regressions.

• Works directly in Swift and integrates cleanly with XCTest.

• Supports multiple snapshot strategies (images, text, JSON, etc.) for both UI and non-UI types.

• Great developer ergonomics: easy assertions, deterministic comparisons, and fast feedback in PRs.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• SnapshotTesting vs. EarlGrey: SnapshotTesting is not a full UI interaction framework; it’s surgical and fast for detecting visual diffs. EarlGrey covers end-to-end interactions, synchronization, and flows. Many teams use SnapshotTesting alongside EarlGrey or XCUITest to catch layout regressions early while leaving flow and behavior tests to a UI framework.

• Consider SnapshotTesting if your primary pain point is visual regressions and you want a simple, Swift-native way to lock down UI appearance.

5) Mabl

Mabl is a commercial, low-code plus AI end-to-end testing platform focused on web and APIs, with self-healing capabilities and a SaaS-first approach. While it’s not an iOS-only framework, teams with hybrid strategies or back-end dependencies often adopt it to unify web and service test coverage alongside mobile efforts.

Key strengths:

• Low-code authoring with self-healing locators, reducing maintenance for web flows.

• Broad test automation capabilities across web and APIs, with CI/CD integration.

• Rich reporting and analytics designed for continuous testing at scale.

• Collaboration features and centralized execution without heavy on-prem setup.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• Mabl vs. EarlGrey: Mabl targets web and API layers with low-code authoring and cloud analytics, whereas EarlGrey is code-heavy and iOS-specific. If your iOS app depends on complex back-end workflows or you maintain a large web front end, Mabl can complement or replace parts of your testing strategy outside of native iOS UI.

• Choose Mabl if your goal is to consolidate cross-platform E2E and API tests with strong reporting, leaving only native device interactions to a mobile-focused tool.

6) TestCafe Studio

TestCafe Studio is the commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe, designed for web UI testing without heavy setup. It runs tests across modern browsers without requiring WebDriver, and offers a guided, visual authoring experience.

Key strengths:

• Codeless, recorder-driven authoring for web UI flows.

• Web-first architecture without WebDriver, simplifying environment setup.

• Cross-browser coverage with CI/CD integration.

• Useful for teams who want to empower QA to build and maintain web tests quickly.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• TestCafe Studio vs. EarlGrey: TestCafe Studio is designed for web, not native iOS UIs. It becomes relevant when your team needs cohesive coverage across web properties or back-office tools that support your iOS app’s functionality. EarlGrey remains focused on native app interaction, which TestCafe Studio does not replace.

• Consider TestCafe Studio if your testing challenges are more about web UIs and you prefer codeless authoring and fast setup.

7) LoadRunner

LoadRunner (originally from Micro Focus, now OpenText) is a long-standing, commercial performance and load testing suite for web, APIs, and various protocols. It is not a drop-in UI testing replacement for iOS, but it is a common alternative or complement when the priority shifts to validating performance, reliability, and scalability under load.

Key strengths:

• Mature, scalable load generation with sophisticated scenario modeling.

• Deep protocol-level support and integration with monitoring/observability tools.

• Performance analytics to identify bottlenecks across services and layers.

• Widely adopted in enterprise DevOps and performance engineering teams.

How it compares to EarlGrey:

• LoadRunner vs. EarlGrey: They serve different layers. EarlGrey is about functional UI testing for iOS apps. LoadRunner is about performance and load testing primarily for services and protocols. If your user-facing issues stem from backend performance rather than UI flows, LoadRunner is a better fit to address those risks.

• Choose LoadRunner if performance, stress, and scalability validation are your top priorities and you want enterprise-grade tooling for that mission.

Things to Consider Before Choosing an EarlGrey Alternative

Before you pivot from or augment EarlGrey, evaluate the following factors in the context of your app, team, and roadmap:

• Project scope and test levels

• Language and skill alignment

• Ease of setup and maintenance

• Execution speed and stability

• CI/CD integration

• Debugging and triage

• Community and ecosystem

• Scalability and cost

• Compliance and data handling

Putting It All Together: Which Alternative Fits Your Needs?

• Stay native and official with XCUITest

• Speed up authoring and enable non-developers with Repeato or Waldo

• Guard visual regressions with SnapshotTesting

• Unify broader E2E and API coverage with Mabl or TestCafe Studio

• Validate performance at scale with LoadRunner

Conclusion

EarlGrey remains a trusted, open-source mainstay for iOS UI testing in Objective‑C and Swift. Its synchronization model, XCTest foundation, and CI/CD readiness make it a reliable choice for teams comfortable with code-centric tests and Apple’s tooling. Yet modern testing strategies often demand more: cross-platform coverage, codeless authoring, broader analytics, and performance validation. That’s where alternatives can shine.

• XCUITest delivers first-party stability and deep Xcode integration.

• Repeato and Waldo accelerate test creation with codeless, mobile-first workflows and cloud execution.

• SnapshotTesting provides a lightweight, Swift-native guardrail against visual regressions.

• Mabl and TestCafe Studio cover web and API layers with low-code experiences and rich reporting.

• LoadRunner addresses performance and scalability concerns that UI frameworks do not.

In practice, many high-performing teams mix and match tools: use a native framework (EarlGrey or XCUITest) for deterministic device flows, a snapshot tool for visual checks, a codeless platform to scale authoring and cloud runs, and a performance suite to de-risk backend load. The right combination depends on your app’s architecture, your team’s skills, and the risks you need to mitigate. If you prioritize speed to coverage and collaboration, consider adding a codeless or cloud-based platform. If your main pain is UI flakiness, a native framework with strong synchronization—or complementing with snapshot tests—might be the fastest fix.

Whatever you choose, anchor your decision to the risks you must reduce, the metrics you care about (stability, speed, coverage, cost), and the workflows your team can sustain. That’s how you’ll get the most value—whether you stick with EarlGrey, adopt one of these alternatives, or build a hybrid strategy that combines their strengths.