Autosana is an AI-native testing agent that runs your iOS, Android, and web app by intent. No selectors written, no scripts to author. testRigor is a generative-AI testing tool where you write tests in plain English, and its NLP engine parses them into automated runs across web, mobile, desktop, API, and mainframe.

Key Takeaways

TestRigor is a plain-English generative-AI test tool covering web, mobile, desktop, API, and mainframe. Autosana is an AI agent that runs the flow by intent, without any script to author.
Both ship MCP servers in 2026. testRigor's MCP helps a coding agent write and maintain tests. Autosana's MCP lets a coding agent run tests end-to-end against your PR.
TestRigor's public pricing is signup-gated. Autosana prices per agent run with a self-serve trial.
TestRigor's self-healing claim is a 99.5% reduction in test maintenance time. Autosana re-plans against the current UI on every run, so there is no stored script to patch.
Autosana ships hosted iOS + Android device infrastructure as part of the product, tuned for weekly-shipping mobile and web teams.

How do Autosana and TestRigor compare at a glance?

Axis	Autosana	testRigor
Category	AI-native testing agent	Generative-AI test automation (plain-English NLP)
Test Authoring	Natural language or code diff, run by an agent	Plain-English test scripts parsed by NLP
Self-Healing	Re-plans against the current UI every run	Self-learning NLP adapts scripts to UI changes (99.5% maintenance-reduction claim)
Platform Coverage	iOS + Android + Web	Web + Mobile (native/hybrid) + Desktop + API + Mainframe
Coding-Agent MCP	MCP server → agent runs tests end-to-end on PR	MCP server → coding agent writes and maintains tests
Test Generation Source	Code diff or intent description	Production user behavior (JS instrumentation) or plain-English script
Real-Device Layer	Hosted, included	Web/mobile device coverage; not itemized publicly
Pricing Model	Per agent-run (self-serve trial + paid)	Public Open Source (free) + Private paid tier (14-day trial, signup-gated)
Setup to First Test	~10 min (quickstart)	Signup + workspace provisioning

What is TestRigor?

TestRigor is test automation tool.

The core idea: you write tests in plain English, the NLP engine parses them, and the platform runs them across a broad enterprise stack. testRigor claims 90,000+ companies use it, with logos including USDA, Cisco, Esri, Perficient, BusinessWire, and Infor.

Beyond scripted flows, testRigor also generates tests from production user behavior via a JS instrumentation library.

What is Autosana?

Autosana is a cloud-hosted AI agent that tests iOS, Android, and web apps the way a real user would. You describe a flow in natural language, or hand the agent a code diff. There are no selectors to author, no scripts to write, no locators to maintain.

When the UI changes (a button label, a component refactor), the agent re-anchors to whatever now matches the intent. Runs across iOS and Android and web, with hosted device infrastructure and an MCP server for coding-agent workflows.

How do the two tools handle test authoring?

testRigor's model is plain-English scripts. You write, "Click 'Add to Cart.'" Wait for the cart page. Verify the 'Checkout' button appears." The NLP engine parses that into automation. It's low-code by intent, but there is still an authored artifact: a script file the team maintains as the product evolves.

Autosana skips the script entirely. You describe the flow ("open cart, tap checkout, enter test card, confirm order"), and the agent decides which element matches the intent at runtime. There is no test script object between you and the outcome.

The shopping conversation shows up on r/QualityAssurance, where one practitioner using testRigor summed up the trade honestly: "I'm actually automating with it. Very easy and flexible, but it does have some limitations and issues." Every plain-English tool inherits its parser's edge cases.

How does the platform coverage compare?

TestRigor is broad. Per its features page, it covers 3,000+ browser/OS combinations on the web, native and hybrid mobile on iOS and Android, native desktop on Windows/Mac/Linux, API testing (with mocks), and even mainframe testing.

Autosana is focused. iOS, Android, and web are the target surfaces, deeply supported through a hosted device layer built for weekly-shipping mobile and web teams.

If your quality org needs mainframe or Windows desktop coverage alongside modern web, testRigor's stack goes further. If your product IS the modern web and mobile stack, Autosana's depth matters more.

How does coding-agent (MCP) integration work in each?

Both tools ship MCP servers. Same protocol, different job.

TestRigor's MCP is an authoring assistant. Per their MCP integration page (updated 2026-08-21), it lets Claude Code write and maintain testRigor plain-English scripts. There is also a Claude Code Skills integration for the same workflow. The coding agent produces test code that runs on testRigor's runtime.

Autosana's MCP server is an execution runtime. PR opens, the agent reads the code diff, runs the relevant flows across iOS, Android, and web by intent, and posts a video plus verdict back via GitHub integration. There is no test script artifact between the coding agent and the outcome.

Some r/softwaretesting discussion frames this trade wryly: "If you want job security, go with testRigor, since you will be needed to do the…" Scripted tools always leave an artifact to babysit. Agent-executed tests do not.

How does testRigor pricing actually work?

TestRigor uses a two-tier model. Per their signup flow (their /pricing page returns 404):

Public Open Source plan: free
Private One Parallelization plan: 14-day trial, then paid (price not published)

The paid tier is discovered during signup or on a sales call. Google's AI Overview described it as "enterprise-tier subscription pricing tailored to scale across web and mobile device clouds." No public per-seat or per-run number.

Autosana prices per agent-run rather than per seat, with a self-serve trial. The curve flattens as headcount grows because you're paying for runs, not editor licenses. Book a Demo for a per-run quote against your PR volume.

How does maintenance scale as your suite grows?

TestRigor's self-healing is NLP-based. When the UI shifts, the parser tries to re-map the plain-English step to the current DOM. Their public claim on the Selenium alternative page: 99.5% decrease in test maintenance time. That handles cosmetic changes cleanly and many structural ones as well.

Autosana's mechanism is different: the agent replans against the current UI each run. There is no stored plain-English script to re-parse when the flow reshapes. If the intent is still satisfiable ("tap Checkout after adding to cart"), the test passes.

The nuance shows up in community conversation. One r/softwaretesting reply raised the mechanism question directly: "Best of all, on some test failures we were getting good old Selenium exceptions in TestRigor logs. Yes, TestRigor uses Selenium." Selectors still exist under the plain-English layer. Autosana's design removes that layer entirely. Early customer stories including the Gobi Maps case study walk through what that looks like at Series A scale.

Which one should you actually pick?

Pick TestRigor if:

Your quality org spans the full enterprise stack: web, mobile, desktop, API, and mainframe under one authoring surface.
Business analysts, manual testers, and mixed-skill teams (not just engineers) author scripts in plain English.
You want to generate tests from real production user behavior via JS instrumentation.
You value a broad set of published enterprise logos (USDA, Cisco, Esri) as social proof.

Pick Autosana if:

Your product is iOS, Android, or web (or a mix) shipped weekly or faster.
Coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, Devin) are opening PRs faster than a human can write plain-English scripts, and you want the agent to run the tests end-to-end via MCP.
You want authoring, execution, and the hosted device layer collapsed into one product with a self-serve trial.
You value the features overview promise of intent-based tests that self-heal, over a plain-English script that still needs a parser to re-map on every UI shift.

The alternative-choice conversation shows up on r/softwaretesting too, where one thread compared testRigor against Playwright directly: "If you have automators as QA, use Playwright because it's better in almost every…" The parallel question for your team is whether authoring is the bottleneck or whether the deeper cost is human-in-the-loop execution.

Both are legitimate. Pick by which set of scenarios matches your team.

How do you migrate from TestRigor to Autosana without regret?

If you decide the intent-based path fits, migrating a live testRigor suite is a project, not a swap. Here's the honest sequencing:

Sort your TestRigor scripts into tiers. Tier A = critical business flows (login, checkout, payments, core user journeys). Tier B = regression. Tier C = long-tail edge cases. Many teams delete Tier C outright.
Run Autosana in parallel with TestRigor for one sprint. The Autosana quickstart walks through the parallel-run pattern. Compare flake rate, run time, and engineer-hours-per-week.
Migrate Tier A first. Keep both suites live for one full release cycle.
Migrate Tier B in the second wave. Delete Tier C or rebuild only what production traffic proves necessary.
Keep testRigor for the enterprise surfaces it uniquely covers. Mainframe or Windows desktop flows can stay on testRigor if that's a real scope for your team.
Decommission the overlapping TestRigor scope on a set date. Passive graveyards eat future engineer time.

The migration is easier than most teams expect for iOS, Android, and web scope. The parts that stay on testRigor (mainframe, desktop) are where its differentiation lives.

Conclusion

TestRigor and Autosana are solving different problems even though the surface pitch looks similar.

testRigor is a generative-AI test automation tool for mixed-skill teams that need broad enterprise coverage. Web, mobile, desktop, API, and mainframe under one plain-English authoring surface. Its NLP engine parses your scripts and self-heals against UI drift. If your quality org covers that full stack and analysts author tests, TestRigor is a defensible pick.

Autosana is an AI-native testing agent for teams that want the authoring layer gone. Ship an iOS, Android, or web product weekly, use coding agents, and want the MCP server to run tests end-to-end from your PR instead of just writing more scripts? Autosana is the pick that collapses authoring, execution, and hosted device infrastructure into one product.

Bring a build. We'll run it end-to-end across iOS, Android, and web in 30 minutes and you can compare directly against your current testRigor suite before making a call.

Frequently asked questions

Is testRigor free?

testRigor offers a Public Open Source plan at no cost. The Private paid plan starts with a 14-day trial, then transitions to paid pricing that is not published publicly. Discovery happens during signup or a sales call.

Which is better for mobile testing, Autosana or TestRigor?

testRigor covers native and hybrid mobile on iOS and Android as one of many platforms under its plain-English authoring surface. Autosana runs iOS and Android natively via its hosted device layer with agent-based flows, included in the trial. For teams that ship mobile weekly and want zero script maintenance, Autosana wins. For enterprise QA orgs running testRigor across a full stack (web, mobile, desktop, API, mainframe), testRigor is defensible.

Does testRigor self-heal like Autosana?

Both self-heal, but via different mechanisms. testRigor's NLP engine re-parses plain-English scripts against the current DOM when the UI shifts, with a public claim of 99.5% maintenance-time reduction. Autosana's agent re-plans against the current UI on every run: there is no stored script to patch. Different approach, different failure modes.

Can Autosana replace TestRigor entirely?

For iOS, Android, and web E2E flows: yes. For Windows desktop, native Mac desktop, Linux desktop, mainframe, and heavy API-with-mocks testing, testRigor covers surfaces Autosana doesn't target. Rule of thumb: if 60%+ of your TestRigor scope is UI-driven web and mobile, Autosana replaces it. If most of it is desktop, mainframe, or API mocking, keep both.

How long does a TestRigor to Autosana migration take?

For a mid-size UI-driven scope (200 to 400 flows), plan for one quarter end-to-end: two sprints of parallel-run evaluation, one sprint of Tier A migration, two sprints of Tier B, one sprint of decommissioning the overlapping testRigor scope. Keep testRigor for surfaces it uniquely covers.

Does TestRigor really work with Claude Code?

Yes, TestRigor ships both an MCP server (page updated 2026-08-21) and a Claude Code Skills integration. Both let a coding agent write and maintain testRigor plain-English scripts, then hand them to testRigor's runtime.