Put testRigor, Katalon, Testsigma and mabl side by side and their home pages sound almost the same: AI, plain language, self-healing, fewer flaky tests. Their documentation tells a more useful story. Each tool makes a different bet about who writes tests and where they run.
We built this comparison only from each vendor's own documentation and pricing pages, and every fact links to its source. Where a vendor doesn't say something publicly, we say "not stated" rather than guess.
Pick testRigor if you want every test, including API steps, written in free-flowing plain English. Pick Katalon for API-heavy suites and teams that also write Groovy or Java. Pick Testsigma for structured natural-language steps across web, mobile, Salesforce and SAP with an on-premise option. Pick mabl for a low-code, cloud-first platform.
Key takeaways
- testRigor keeps every test in plain English, including API calls, and has a free plan if your tests and results can be public.
- Katalon documents the deepest API testing of the four (REST, SOAP and GraphQL, plus OpenAPI, Postman and WSDL import) and is the only one with a published per-seat price.
- Testsigma and Katalon both document on-premise deployment. testRigor and mabl don't state one on the pages we checked.
- Robonito is an agentic option with a free-forever web plan. API and mobile testing need its Pro plan.
How did we compare these tools?
We compared authoring, web, mobile and API coverage, self-healing, CI/CD, deployment and pricing. Prices were checked on 14 November 2026 and can change at any time, so check each vendor's pricing page before you buy.
How do testRigor, Katalon, Testsigma and mabl compare?
A few notes on the table:
- testRigor's free plan is public. Its sign-up page says all tests and test results on the free plan are public. That suits open-source projects and evaluations, not private apps.
- Katalon's Free plan is local. The pricing page lists local authoring and runs for it, and its button reads "Start 30-day free trial". Its comparison table puts CI/CD, cloud execution and AI self-healing on paid plans.
Which is better for API testing: testRigor or Katalon?
For API-heavy work, Katalon. It documents far more API features than testRigor does. testRigor is the better fit when API calls exist to support UI journeys and you want them in the same plain-English test.
testRigor writes API calls as plain-English steps. Its own API testing walkthrough shows one step that sends a GET request with headers, extracts a value with a JSONPath expression, saves it as a variable and checks that the HTTP code is 200. The same test then carries on in the browser, so UI and API checks live in one readable place.
Katalon treats API testing as a first-class product. Its API testing page documents:
- REST, SOAP and GraphQL requests;
- import from OpenAPI 3.0 and 3.1, Swagger 2.0, Postman collections, WSDL, SoapUI projects and cURL commands;
- API, web and mobile steps in one test case, for example creating an order through the API and checking it in the browser;
- headless, parallel runs with Katalon Runtime Engine in Jenkins, GitHub Actions, Azure DevOps, GitLab CI or Docker.
One limitation is worth knowing: Katalon's GraphQL guide says GraphQL variables don't currently work, and suggests workarounds.
What does each vendor document for API testing?
| What the vendor documents | |
|---|---|
| testRigor | Plain-English API calls with headers, JSONPath extraction, saved values and status-code checks, mixed with UI steps (source) |
| Katalon | REST, SOAP and GraphQL; OpenAPI, Swagger, Postman, WSDL, SoapUI and cURL import; API, web and mobile steps in one test (source) |
| Testsigma | REST API steps with GET, POST, PUT, PATCH and DELETE; SOAP through the same step; GraphQL bodies; body, header and status verifications; stored values; use alongside UI steps in web and mobile tests (source) |
| mabl | Postman collection import; API calls to set up state before UI flows or check backend state after them; runs from GitHub Actions, GitLab CI or Jenkins (source) |
| Robonito | API testing on the Pro and Custom plans, with Postman collection import |
If your API suite is large and spans several protocols, start with Katalon. If it's mostly REST next to UI tests, choose on authoring style instead.
testRigor NLP vs Katalon: plain English or code?
testRigor is built so that all tests are always in plain English. You describe what a user sees and does, and testRigor works out which element you mean. Its Chrome recorder also writes plain-English steps, so recorded tests stay readable. Manual testers and product owners can review and edit the suite directly.
Katalon offers no-code, low-code and full-code authoring in one project, with Groovy and Java for the code layer. Its AI assistant generates script code from a commented description. The built-in AI service needs a Katalon Studio Enterprise license; otherwise you bring your own key from a supported provider. That model suits mixed teams where automation engineers own the framework and others contribute through the recorder and keywords.
A simple rule: if the people writing tests don't code, testRigor fits better. If engineers want full control and code reviews of test logic, Katalon fits better.
How does Testsigma compare to mabl and testRigor?
All three aim to let non-developers automate, but they get there differently.
- Testsigma uses structured natural-language steps. Its docs describe each step as plain English with test data and element placeholders, plus a recorder and a Copilot that builds and runs steps in one live session. It covers web, mobile, API, Windows desktop, Salesforce and SAP, and its Enterprise plan lists on-premise deployment.
- mabl is low-code and cloud-first. You start from a plain-English description, a user story or a Jira ticket, or build tests point-and-click. According to mabl, it handles routine UI changes automatically and asks for approval before larger changes.
- testRigor uses free-flowing plain English rather than structured steps, and it covers email, SMS and 2FA flows in the same language. Its free plan is public only.
In short: Testsigma for breadth and on-premise, mabl for a managed cloud workflow, testRigor for the most natural English.
testRigor vs Testim: what's the difference?
Testim is now Tricentis Testim, "AI-powered testing for custom web, mobile, and Salesforce apps".
- Authoring: Testim records tests as you click through your app, can build a test when you describe what you need, and lets you add code. testRigor keeps everything in plain English.
- Stability: Testim relies on AI/ML smart locators that self-heal. testRigor heals from the plain-English description of each element, with optional Vision AI healing.
- API: Testim's API steps sit inside UI tests, to fetch data or check that a backend value matches the frontend. Standalone API tests aren't described on that page. testRigor also mixes API and UI steps, in plain English.
- Coverage: Testim lists web, native and hybrid mobile and Salesforce. testRigor adds native Windows desktop, email and SMS.
- Pricing: Testim's pricing page shows "Contact Us" for its Salesforce, Web and Mobile plans, and accounts revert to a Community plan after a trial. testRigor has a public free plan and a Pay As You Go plan.
Choose Testim if your team prefers recording and needs Salesforce-specific testing. Choose testRigor if you want tests anyone can read as plain sentences. Our Robonito vs Testim page compares Testim with Robonito.
Which tool is best for your team?
- testRigor: best if your testers don't code and you want one plain-English language for web, mobile, desktop, API, email and SMS.
- Katalon: best if API testing is a big part of your work, engineers want Groovy or Java, you need on-premise, or you want a published per-seat price.
- Testsigma: best if you test Salesforce or SAP alongside web and mobile, and want natural-language steps with an on-premise option.
- mabl: best if you want a managed, cloud-first, low-code platform and you're happy to request a quote.
- Testim: best if you prefer recording tests and Salesforce is central to your stack.
For deeper write-ups on individual tools, see our testRigor alternatives, Katalon alternative, mabl alternative and Testsigma alternatives guides.
Where does Robonito fit?
Robonito is an agentic QA platform: AI agents create, run and maintain end-to-end tests. In AI Studio you describe what to test, paste a URL or reference a Jira issue, and the agent works through the app step by step. You can also record a flow in the desktop app, build no-code tests from reusable steps, use low-code extensions for advanced cases and export executable code.
Where it fits well:
- Starting free. Plain text to test case, Autopilot and self-healing are all on the free-forever plan for web, with 100 test cases a month.
- Testing AI. Robonito's agents test chatbots, voice agents and IVR, grading them for accuracy, policy and safety, alongside your web, mobile and API tests.
- Evidence. Every run keeps video, network traces and an AI root cause for failures, with pass rates, trends and risk analysis across runs.
- Deployment and security. Cloud, private cloud, on-premise or hybrid, with RBAC, audit logs and a SOC 2 Type II report shared under NDA.
Where another tool fits better:
- API or mobile on a small budget. Robonito's API, mobile and desktop testing start on Pro at $199 a month. If you only need web plus a few API checks, compare that with your other options.
- Protocol-heavy API suites. Katalon publicly documents SOAP, GraphQL, WSDL and SoapUI support. If those matter, Katalon is the safer choice.
- Code-first teams. If your engineers want to write Groovy or Java directly, Katalon matches that workflow more closely.
- Public open-source projects. testRigor's free public plan is built for tests that can be seen by anyone.
Club Car cut QA testing time by over 70% with Robonito on its CPQ and 3D configurator testing.
on a web flow you already test, or and bring the shortlist you're comparing.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for API testing: testRigor or Katalon?
Katalon, for API-heavy work. It documents REST, SOAP and GraphQL, imports OpenAPI, Postman and WSDL definitions, and runs suites headless in CI. testRigor is better when API calls support UI tests and you want them written in plain English in the same test.
How does testRigor compare to Katalon?
testRigor keeps every test in plain English and covers web, mobile, Windows desktop and API from one language. Katalon mixes no-code, low-code and Groovy or Java, documents on-premise deployment, and publishes a per-seat price. testRigor suits non-coding testers. Katalon suits teams with automation engineers.
testRigor vs Testim.io: which should I choose?
Choose testRigor for plain-English tests across web, mobile, desktop, API, email and SMS. Choose Tricentis Testim if your team prefers recording tests, relies on AI smart locators and needs Salesforce testing. Testim's plans are priced on request. testRigor has a free public plan and a Pay As You Go plan.
How does Testsigma compare to mabl and testRigor?
Testsigma uses structured natural-language steps and covers web, mobile, API, desktop, Salesforce and SAP, with on-premise on its Enterprise plan. mabl is a low-code, cloud-first platform with auto-heal and Postman import. testRigor uses free-flowing plain English. Choose by authoring style and deployment needs.
What's the difference between testRigor's NLP and Katalon?
testRigor's natural language is the test itself: every step is a plain-English sentence describing what a user sees and does. Katalon's AI assistant generates Groovy or Java code from a comment, which engineers then review and maintain. One is built for readers, the other for coders.
Which of these tools has a free plan?
testRigor has a free plan, but its tests and results are public. Katalon lists a Free plan for local authoring and runs, though its button offers a 30-day trial. Testsigma and mabl don't publish free plans; mabl offers a 14-day trial. Robonito has a free-forever plan for web testing. Plans change, so check each pricing page.
Shortlisting AI test automation tools? Describe one of your critical journeys and watch Robonito's agent build, run and heal it. or .
