mabl vs Autify
Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.
Entry price
Quote on request
Quote onlyQuote on request
Quote onlyWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
Quote-based, typically sold as an annual contract sized by test runs and users. Expect mid five figures for a team deployment.
Quote-based annual contracts sized by test runs.
Free tier
14-day free trial.
Two-week free trial.
Open source
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Established
mabl · since 2018
Emerging
Autify, Inc. · since 2016
Strengths
- Self-healing genuinely reduces maintenance on UIs that change often.
- Auto-captured visual, performance and accessibility signals on every run without extra setup.
- Very little infrastructure to own — no grid, no runners.
- Very low barrier to a first working suite — recording plus a managed browser cloud.
- Maintenance burden is genuinely reduced by the self-healing model.
- Covers web and native mobile from one vendor.
Limitations
- Cloud-only. If your application is not reachable from mabl's infrastructure, the setup gets complicated.
- Complex conditional logic hits the ceiling of the low-code model.
- Opaque pricing and a substantial minimum commitment.
- No self-hosted option.
- Limited support for complex data-driven scenarios.
- Smaller international presence and support footprint than the US vendors.
Best for
Mid-market teams that want broad automated coverage without hiring an automation team.
Small QA teams that need automation without an engineering hire.
All of these integrate with: Jira, Jenkins, Slack.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.