Both DevAssure and Mabl are cloud-hosted, AI-assisted E2E testing platforms. The core difference is how tests get created. Mabl is built around QA engineers recording tests through a browser extension — you click through user flows and Mabl learns them. DevAssure is built around developers — it reads your code diff, figures out what changed, and generates + runs tests automatically with no human recording step. If you have a dedicated QA team that records and maintains test suites, Mabl is a mature, proven choice. If you want testing that triggers on every PR with zero test authoring, DevAssure fits.
Feature-by-feature
Side-by-side comparison.
The facts, without the marketing spin.
Criteria
DevAssure O2
🔷Mabl
Setup time
~2 min — Add a GitHub Action YAML file
Days–weeks — Install browser extension, then record each test manually
Test creation
Auto-generated from code diffs + plain English YAML
Visual click-through recorder. Each test path must be manually recorded and saved.
Infrastructure
Fully managed. Runs inside your GitHub Actions runners. Zero ops.
Fully managed SaaS. Tests run on Mabl's cloud. No self-hosting needed.
CI/CD integration
Native GitHub Action on Marketplace. Also CLI + VS Code.
CI plugin for GitHub, Jenkins, CircleCI. No native GitHub Action on Marketplace.
Change awareness
✓ Scoped to code diff — only tests what actually changed
✕ Runs full recorded suite regardless of which code changed
Test maintenance
✓ Agent self-heals and adapts. ~Zero upkeep.
~ ML auto-healing reduces re-recordings, but some manual updates still needed
Who authors tests
The AI agent. Developers describe flows in YAML or let diffs drive generation.
QA engineers record flows through a browser extension. Developer involvement optional.
IDE support
✓ VS Code extension + Cursor + Claude skill
✕ Browser extension for recording only. No IDE integration.
Open source
✕ Proprietary (SOC2 certified)
✕ Proprietary SaaS
Security compliance
SOC2 Type II certified. Enterprise-ready.
SOC2 Type II certified. GDPR compliant.
Pricing
Free trial → $50/mo → $200/mo → Enterprise
No public free tier. Team plans from ~$500/mo. Enterprise on request.
Visual test reports with screenshots, video replays, and root-cause suggestions
What matters most
The tradeoffs that actually affect your team.
1
Recording tests manually vs. generating them from code
DevAssure
DevAssure needs zero test authoring. When a developer opens a PR, O2 reads the diff, maps affected user journeys, and generates + runs tests automatically. Add devassure/devassure-action@v1 once and the agent handles everything from that point.
Mabl
Mabl requires a QA engineer (or developer) to record each test manually using the Mabl Trainer browser extension. You click through a flow, Mabl learns it. Coverage is only as broad as the flows you've recorded — which takes days or weeks before CI integration is meaningful.
2
Change-scoped testing vs. full suite on every run
DevAssure
O2 compares branches and runs only the tests relevant to what changed in the PR. A change to the checkout flow tests checkout — it doesn't re-run your 200 sign-up, settings, and profile tests. This keeps CI fast and feedback instant.
Mabl
Mabl runs the full recorded test suite on each trigger. As your test library grows, run times grow with it. There's no built-in mechanism to scope runs to the code delta — you can manually tag and filter, but it requires upfront organisation effort.
3
Pricing: accessible vs. QA-team budget
DevAssure
DevAssure starts with a free trial and scales to $50/month for growing teams. Because tests are generated automatically, there's no hidden cost in QA engineering time — a solo developer or small team can get full E2E coverage without a dedicated tester on payroll.
Mabl
Mabl's team plans start around $500/month and are priced for organisations with established QA functions. The platform cost is just one line item — factor in the QA engineer time needed to record and maintain the test library when evaluating total cost.
4
Developer-first vs. QA-first workflows
DevAssure
DevAssure is built into the developer workflow: push code → O2 runs automatically → results appear in the PR. Developers don't interact with the test tool at all unless they want to write custom YAML scenarios. No QA handoff required.
Mabl
Mabl excels in organisations with dedicated QA engineers who own the test suite. QA controls what's tested, how scenarios are organised, and when runs are triggered. For teams with a mature QA function, this is a strength — QA has deep control over coverage and test quality.
Setup side by side
What each approach actually looks like.
DevAssure — GitHub Actions
.github/workflows/devassure.yml
name:DevAssure O2on:pull_request:branches: [main]
jobs:test:runs-on:ubuntu-lateststeps:
- uses:actions/checkout@v4with:fetch-depth:0
- uses:devassure/devassure-action@v1env:DEVASSURE_TOKEN:${{ secrets.DEVASSURE_TOKEN }}# Done. O2 generates and runs tests# automatically on every PR.
Mabl — Getting to CI
terminal + browser
# 1. Install the Mabl CLInpm install -g @mablhq/mabl-cli
# 2. Authenticate your workspacemabl auth --apiKey <your-api-key># 3. Record tests (requires Chrome + extension)# Open Mabl Trainer → click through each flow# Repeat for every test scenario you need# 4. Trigger runs in CI (after recording)mabl run --environment staging# Coverage = only what you recorded
Our honest take
Choose what fits how you work.
There's no universally “better” tool. Here's when each makes sense.
🟣 Pick DevAssure when…
You want tests generated automatically — no recording step
You ship frequently with AI coding tools (Cursor, Copilot, Claude)
You don't have a dedicated QA team or QA budget
You need every PR tested, not just scheduled suite runs
You want native GitHub Actions integration with a free trial
You need test coverage to scale with output, not headcount
🔷 Pick Mabl when…
You have a dedicated QA team that owns the test suite
Your team prefers visual, click-based test authoring
You need rich reporting dashboards with QA-team analytics
You want ML-powered self-healing for manually recorded tests
Your codebase is stable and recording-based coverage is sufficient
You're evaluating well-established tools with proven enterprise track records
Common questions
What teams ask when evaluating.
Not strictly — developers can record tests too. But Mabl's workflow (browser extension recording, suite organisation, maintenance) is optimised for QA engineers. DevAssure is designed so developers never need to think about test authoring at all. If you don't have a QA team, DevAssure's auto-generation approach is a better fit.
Yes. DevAssure generates tests fresh from your codebase — there's nothing to import. Run both in parallel during a trial period: DevAssure on PRs via GitHub Actions, Mabl on your existing schedule. Once you're satisfied with O2's coverage, removing Mabl is as simple as cancelling the subscription.
Yes. Both platforms handle UI drift without manual selector updates. The difference is in origin: Mabl heals recorded tests when the UI changes. DevAssure re-generates tests from the new code diff, so tests stay aligned with the codebase by construction rather than by repair.
DevAssure's Growth plan ($200/month) covers most 10-person teams with unlimited test runs. Mabl's equivalent team tier runs ~$500–800/month depending on parallel runners and user seats. For smaller teams without a QA budget, DevAssure's free trial handles the basics at no cost.
DevAssure's diff-based approach was built for high-velocity, AI-assisted development. Each PR gets targeted tests scoped to what changed — critical when AI tools generate large diffs frequently. Mabl's recorded-suite model assumes a more stable, manually-authored codebase. For teams using Cursor, Copilot, or Claude to write code, DevAssure's auto-generation keeps pace naturally.
Get started
Test every PR automatically. No recording required.
Free trial. No credit card. Works with your existing GitHub workflow.
DevAssure O2