Technical Evaluation: Top 14 AI Mobile Test Automation Tools (August 2025)
- Christian Schiller
- 1. Aug.
- 5 Min. Lesezeit
Aktualisiert: vor 12 Stunden
Executive Summary
Noom is one of the leading weight loss apps and is available on both Android and iOS platforms. Noom has been downloaded more than 50 million times since its launch, making it one of the most widely adopted weight loss solutions globally
Noom’s SDET team, working in XCUI and Espresso, ran a structured comparison across 14 AI mobile test automation tools, including Firebase’s AI agent. Most were online-only platforms without SDKs or native CI support. GPT Driver was the only tool that fit their requirements: native iOS and Android support, prompt-based test creation inside existing codebases, and reliable execution in CI.
The QA team recommended moving forward with GPT Driver based on:
Full SDK integration for mobile projects
Fast, low-maintenance test creation
Easy debugging in CI/CD
Recent speed improvements from backend caching
“From our engineering standpoint, GPT Driver is the clear winner... I’ll be formally recommending purchase this week.” — QA Lead
Noom’s plan is to start with the medium-tier plan (50K steps/month, 2 VMs, 5 seats), with expected usage increasing as test coverage expands.
“Now that execution speed is good, we’ll likely run tests more than once a day.”
Noom has also expressed interest in helping shape future features based on their use cases.
Tools Noom Discarded When Testing
Ranking Criteria
Group | Criteria | Description |
Functionality | Test Script Creation | Prompt based tests can be created with minimal manual coding or without having to mix prompt-based instructions with traditional code instructions |
Test Execution | Ease and reliability of executing automated tests | |
Reporting and Analytics | Detailed test reports: error stack traces, screenshots, video recordings of failures | |
Integration Capabilities | Compatibility with existing test environments and tools (e.g., CI/CD pipelines) | |
Debugging Capabilities | AI-prompt based tests can be debugged in the same environment as traditional tests | |
Usability | Ease of Use | How intuitive and user-friendly is the tool’s interface |
Learning Curve | Time and effort required to learn and become proficient with the tool | |
Documentation Quality | Availability and comprehensiveness of documentation and support | |
Maintenance Effort | Effort required to maintain and update automated tests | |
Performance | Execution Speed | Speed at which tests can be executed |
Stability | Reliability and consistency of test execution | |
Scalability | Ability to handle a large number of tests and users | |
Cost and Support | Licensing Cost | Cost of acquiring and maintaining the tool license |
Support Availability | Availability and quality of vendor support | |
Community Support | Availability of community resources and forums |
Comparison by Functionality, Usability, Performance, and Cost/Support
Tool | Noom’s Notes | Functionality | Usability | Performance | Cost and Support |
Functionize | Online only, no SDK | AI-based, codeless tests with self-healing and analytics | Natural language, low maintenance | Scales in cloud, stable runs | Custom pricing, vendor support |
LambdaTest | Online only, no SDK | 3000+ browsers/devices, CI/CD, HyperExecute | Easy UI, Kane AI, good docs | Fast parallel runs, 1.2B+ tests | Free tier, plans from $15/mo |
testRigor | Online only, no SDK | Plain-English, cross-platform, self-healing | Non-coders can create tests | Stable cloud runs, low flakiness | Parallel-based pricing, fast support |
Testsigma | Online only, no SDK | Open-source, NLP steps, self-healing | Simple recorder, low-code | Parallel execution, smart waits | Free OSS, cloud ~$299/mo |
Sauce Labs | It’s only a device farm that you can access remotely or from your local dev machine. It also has a tool to create tests, but it’s online only. | 9000+ devices, low-code studio, AI insights | Low-code + scripting, rich docs | Billions of tests, very stable | Live $39/mo, Auto $149/mo |
Katalon | Online only, no SDK | All-in-one IDE + cloud, AI locators | Keyword-driven, quick start | Parallel CI runs, smart waits | Free core, paid from $84/mo |
SmartBear | No SDK | TestComplete, codeless + scripting, AI locators | Recorder + scripts, Windows IDE | Parallel runs, 95% locator heal | Licenses ~$6k+/yr, 24/5 support |
Firebase Agent | No SDK | AI creates Android tests from text | Very simple, console UI | Parallel device runs, preview-only | Free preview, limited support |
Applitools | It’s a visual testing tool. Takes screenshots for the screen and elements, uploads them to a cloud platform, and compares with baselines. | Visual AI, Ultrafast Grid, auto-maintenance | One-line SDK, visual dashboard | Fast visual diffs, stable runs | Free tier, plans from $899/mo |
mabl | No SDK | Low-code web/API, self-healing, CI/CD | Recorder, low curve, strong docs | Unlimited parallel cloud runs | Custom pricing, 24/5 support |
ACCELQ | Online only, no SDK | Codeless, end-to-end, AI maintenance | Natural language steps, templates | 7.5× faster authoring, low flakiness | Subscription, 24/7 support |
Mobile MCP | Able to execute actions on a mobile device based on a prompt. But it’s dependent on an LLM tool (ie: Cursor). It cannot make LLM calls on its own, to be able to run on the CI. | Server for iOS/Android automation | CLI/API for engineers, docs + Slack | Fast commands, async, scalable | Free OSS, community support |
Alumnium | Currently supports web and iOS, not yet Android. It’s built on top of Appium, which is known to have delays in updating to new iOS / Android versions. With major OS version updates, Appium updates can take even up to 6 weeks to arrive, which hinders development. | NL → Selenium/Playwright via LLMs | Simple Python SDK, readable tests | Deterministic, parallelizable | Free OSS, LLM API cost only |
Conclusions
GPT Driver was the only usable tool for Noom’s use case. Most competing products only provide online tools for storing and executing test prompts. Noom, however, required a tool with an SDK that could be embedded into existing mobile projects, while also offering the flexibility to manage test cases internally.
Things To Consider Before Purchasing a GPT Driver License
Test creation speed (High)
Using a Cursor rule to break down a plain English test case into prompt-based automation code, a simple/medium complexity working automated test can be created in under 10 minutes
Test execution speed (Moderate)
Test execution is slow the first time a test is executed because every prompt-based step involves LLM reasoning. A test scenario that can be manually executed in ~1 minute can take up to 3 minutes to execute in full prompt-based mode
In follow-up runs, GPT Driver backend uses cached steps from older runs of the same prompt, and the execution speed increases dramatically
No cache run: 3m 36s
Same test with cache: 1m 22s
Additional speed improvement options
Mix native automation code with prompt-based steps
Limit the number of tests that use 100% prompt-based steps
Limit the number of times we run the prompt-based tests (i.e., once a day)
Increase the CI spend if we want to execute prompt-based tests more often (i.e., on PR)
Cost
Base price: $1,000/month, on a yearly subscription
Noom’s Overall Recommendation
Buy GPT Driver license for 1 year, test it internally with QA and adopt the tool and processes to Noom’s needs.
