Before Maestro, a lot of our project coordination lived in scattered places: partial notes in docs, updates in Slack threads, tasks in a project board, and then the “real status” living in someone’s head. Maestro gave us a single place to organize work in a way that actually matches how we operate. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

A little more flexibility in customization would be nice. There are moments where I want to tailor views/fields a bit more to match how our team thinks about work (like slightly different status stages or more granular tagging) without workarounds. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Fast time-to-value: the YAML + CLI workflow takes you from “no e2e” to “useful coverage” quickly.

Dev-friendly authoring: the DSL is readable, flows are composable, and it’s much easier to PR-review than the usual Espresso/XCUITest soup.

Great CI story: it runs cleanly in GitHub Actions, and scheduled runs are simple to set up while still being trustworthy for catching regressions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Runtime can balloon: Test suites can quickly reach 20–30 minutes, so you’ll likely want sharding/parallelism, smarter test selection, and careful suite hygiene to keep things manageable. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The end result is almost human a readable script that works for both android and iOS.

We had tried solutions in the pasts in a few different jobs and all of them had cumbersome setup, maestro has polished this a lot to the point where all you need is Java SDK + Homebrew in your OS environment to get you started. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It's a bit slow at times. Also its error logs tend to be a bit cryptic Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro stands out for its clear, practical documentation and a very gentle learning curve: writing and maintaining flows feels straightforward, and getting it running in a project is typically quick. It’s approachable enough that you don’t need deep automation expertise to contribute, which helps more people on the team participate in test creation. Another big plus is reusability—tests and common flows can be shared across iOS and Android, reducing duplicated work and making it easier to keep behaviour consistent across platforms. As the suite grows, the structure and readability of tests make it easier to scale and maintain over time. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Our main challenge has been stability when running larger suites, especially in CI: we often see flaky failures that don’t reflect real product issues. In particular, Maestro sometimes fails to detect elements that are visible on screen, or the run stops unexpectedly. If reliability and element detection were more consistent, it would significantly increase confidence in results and make Maestro an even stronger option as a primary regression gate. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro has made iOS mobile automation genuinely enjoyable for me to work with as a developer. The YAML-based flow syntax is clear, readable, and easy to maintain, which matters a lot for us since all test automation is owned by developers rather than a dedicated QA team.

Maestro Studio so far has been great. Being able to attach to a running iOS emulator, visually inspect the app, click elements, and generate or select steps removes much of the usual guesswork around mobile selectors. That alone has saved a significant amount of time and frustration compared to other mobile testing approaches and it was a concern of ours when we started app testing automation.

I also really appreciate the ability to extract common steps into reusable utils. It keeps flows clean, reduces duplication, and makes it much easier to scale automation as the app grows. Setup was straightforward, and we were able to start creating meaningful automation quickly for our React Native app, without a heavy framework or a long onboarding process.

Overall, Maestro strikes a great balance between power and approachability, especially for teams that already use tools like Playwright for web but want something purpose-built for mobile. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Element selection can occasionally be a bit tricky, particularly with more complex or dynamic screens, though this is a fairly minor issue and largely offset by how good Maestro Studio is for inspecting and selecting elements directly from a running emulator. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like how simple it is to create test cases using clear, straightforward commands.

Also i like that it is easy to combine with other tools, so that our development team can see and review my testcases. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Using Maestro Studio Desktop, I’ve noticed that improvements made in the cloud version aren’t being carried over to the desktop version. I don’t expect the premium advantages in the desktop version, but some of the fixes available in the cloud version are necessary for the desktop version as well.

In the manual, i sometimes find it difficult to know when the information i need is meant for the desktop version, or only the Cloud version. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro is a powerful and developer-friendly mobile UI testing tool. It’s easy to set up, uses simple YAML syntax, and enables fast, reliable end-to-end testing for both Android and iOS. Its speed, readability, and support for real-world user flows make it a great choice for modern mobile automation teams. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One limitation of Maestro is the lack of XPath support. Since it relies mainly on accessibility IDs, text, or hierarchy-based selectors, it can sometimes be difficult to target specific elements—especially in complex or poorly labeled UIs. This can make certain edge cases harder to automate compared to tools that support more flexible selectors. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like that the explicit waits are built in, and that it uses human readable format. It's also really nice to just have a seperate .yaml file so we can use GIT to push it up when we need to, along with the rest of the code base. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes, and for some use cases, the simplified flow can be limiting. There may be specific use cases that I would need conditional loops, and other logic gates that Maestro may not be able to fulfill. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro stands out for its simplicity and reliability. The declarative test syntax makes it incredibly easy to write and maintain mobile automation tests, even for complex user flows. I especially appreciate how fast it is to get started — there’s no heavy setup, and the feedback loop is almost instant, which makes debugging much smoother than with traditional tools like Appium or Espresso.

Another big plus is its stability across devices. Tests tend to be far less flaky, thanks to the built-in synchronization and smart element detection. This has saved us a lot of time and frustration in our QA cycles. I also like how well it integrates with CI/CD pipelines, allowing automated testing to become a natural part of the release process.

Overall, Maestro helps teams move faster and ship with more confidence. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

While Maestro is very easy to use, it can feel somewhat limited for highly advanced or deeply customized automation scenarios. For example, when we need very fine-grained control over device capabilities, complex gestures, or low-level integrations, it doesn’t always provide the same flexibility as more mature frameworks like Appium.

Another downside is that debugging and reporting, although improving, could be more robust. When a test fails, the logs are helpful, but they sometimes lack the depth needed for complex troubleshooting, especially in large-scale test suites.

Lastly, the ecosystem and community are still growing. That means fewer third-party examples, plugins, and best practices compared to older tools. It’s evolving quickly, but for now, it may require a bit more experimentation when implementing advanced workflows.

Overall, Maestro is excellent for speed and simplicity, but it’s not yet the most powerful option for every edge case. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like most about Maestro is how simple and reliable it is. It makes mobile automation easy to write and maintain, and it’s very efficient for building and running tests. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There’s very little to dislike about Maestro overall. That said, the documentation can occasionally feel a bit light when you’re dealing with more advanced workflows or edge-case scenarios, and I’d appreciate more detail in those situations. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.