TestingBot

TestingBot is a cloud grid for automated and manual testing on real browsers and physical mobile devices. It is best for teams covering web and mobile with several frameworks, CI pipelines and testing modes. The main decision is whether each plan’s testing-time allowance and parallelism match your workload.

Overview

Founded in 2011 in Moerbeke, Belgium, TestingBot combines browser and device coverage in one hosted service. It supports Android, iOS, web, Windows, macOS, Linux and API work, so it can serve product teams testing both websites and mobile apps. Real devices are a practical advantage over browser-only services, while the free plan and 14-day trial lower the barrier to evaluation.

Key features

Testing modes include automated, live manual, visual and AI-assisted testing. Framework support spans Selenium, Appium, Playwright, Cypress, Puppeteer, Espresso, XCUITest and Maestro, which suits organizations that want to retain existing test suites instead of adopting a single proprietary approach.

Automated jobs can run in parallel, with concurrency set in test configuration or a CI pipeline. Jenkins, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, CircleCI, Azure DevOps, Bamboo, TeamCity, Travis CI, Jira and Slack integrations cover common delivery and issue workflows. A public REST API and webhooks allow custom connections when built-in integrations are not enough.

TestingBot says it is GDPR-compliant by design and CSA STAR Level 1 registered. Sessions use isolated machines or devices that are wiped afterward. Logs, videos, screenshots and other artifacts are processed and stored in EU datacenters; data is encrypted at rest with AES-256 and in transit with TLS 1.2 or later. Those controls are useful for teams with European residency or security requirements.

Pricing

A free plan and 14-day trial provide a way to assess the service. The Live plan is €20 a year when billed annually, or €30 month-to-month. It includes unlimited live and visual testing, real iOS and Android devices, and 24x7 support by email, chat and Slack. It fits manual-focused teams; it does not include an automated-minute allowance.

Automated costs €50 a year billed annually, or €70 month-to-month. It adds 1,000 automated minutes per month while retaining unlimited live and visual testing, real devices and 24x7 support. This is the sensible entry tier for regular CI automation, but the monthly minute quota can interrupt heavier suites.

Pay As You Go costs 60.00 EUR as a one-time payment and supplies 1,000 testing minutes, one parallel session, and €0.06 per minute. Minutes never expire and cover automated, manual, visual and AI testing. It suits occasional projects; a single session limits throughput.

Automated Pro is €90 a year billed annually, or €120 month-to-month. It provides unlimited automated, live and visual testing on real iOS and Android devices with 24x7 support, making it the stronger choice for sustained automation. Enterprise has custom pricing and adds unlimited testing, 10+ parallel tests, single sign-on, priority support and private-cloud availability.

Across plans, testing stops when the monthly testing time is used until the next billing month or an upgrade. Enterprise supports private cloud, but on-premise deployment is not supported.

Platforms

Coverage includes Android, iOS, web, Windows, macOS, Linux and API access. Real mobile devices are included on the principal paid tiers, while browser and device testing can be driven through the supported frameworks and CI systems.

Who it's for

TestingBot is a strong fit for development and QA teams that need one service for web and mobile, already use Selenium, Appium, Playwright or related frameworks, and want parallel CI execution. Live is better for manual and visual specialists; Automated suits moderate recurring CI; Automated Pro is aimed at high-volume automation. Pay As You Go works for sporadic testing, while Enterprise targets organizations needing SSO, private cloud and high concurrency.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Real browsers and physical iOS and Android devices support more realistic cross-platform checks.
• Eight named frameworks and broad CI integrations reduce migration work for established teams.
• Automated, manual, visual and AI-assisted modes cover different QA stages in one service.
• EU data processing, session isolation, device wiping and stated encryption controls help with compliance-sensitive projects.
• Pay As You Go minutes never expire, useful when testing demand is irregular.

Cons

• Lower-cost recurring plans impose monthly testing-time limits, and runs stop after the allowance is reached.
• Pay As You Go permits only one parallel session, restricting throughput.
• On-premise deployment is unavailable, so teams requiring an entirely self-hosted environment should look elsewhere.
• Enterprise pricing requires a sales conversation, making budgeting less direct.

Alternatives

For a broader category comparison, see Device Farm Software, Mobile App Testing Software, Browser Testing Software and Browser Automation Tools.

Maestro is the better pick when a freemium, open-source local workflow across Android and iOS matters. Choose SureAsset for free asset lifecycle and license tracking rather than test execution. Appetize suits users wanting a free tier with two active devices and 30 monthly minutes. Samsung Remote Test Lab offers free Samsung-device access with limited daily credits. TestMu AI Real Device Cloud is an option for a free real-device tier capped at one parallel test and five short live sessions monthly. Firebase Cloud Messaging is for no-cost push messaging, not a testing grid. BrowserStack Live is an alternative for live browser testing with a freelancer plan. DeviceFarmer is a free option for teams seeking a device-farm project.

Verdict

Choose TestingBot if you need automated and manual web-and-mobile testing, real devices, framework flexibility and CI connectivity in one hosted platform. Its security controls and enterprise private-cloud option strengthen the case for professional teams. Look elsewhere if your suites routinely exceed monthly allowances, require more concurrency on a low-cost plan, or must run entirely on premises.