The idea and general direction of what it was trying to do were very promising. I can see that it should be simple, with easy-to-write automation across several different platforms Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

In actually trying to build the automation, specifically around web automation, the application would add in its own steps or overwrite what I was doing, and my tests would just not work at all. Making it pretty much unusable for our team. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

- Super easy setup to test native iOS and Android E2E flows

- Easy writeable and readable E2E tests

- Implementation works super fast, very easy to set up MVP and start experiences with Maestro E2E testing

- Open source an running it locally does not need big bunch of money

- Cloud support to have history and automation on E2E test runs

- Slack customer support is amazing, fast and skilled Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

- Pricing of Cloud support makes it a corporate feature, hard to use it for small, non-profit projects Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like best about Maestro is how intuitive it is to use. It makes complex tasks feel straightforward, and I don’t need to spend much time figuring things out. It helps me stay focused and work more efficiently without unnecessary complications. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

At times, Maestro feels slightly rigid, and I would like more control over how certain options are configured. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It’s a platform-agnostic tool. I can use it in my React Native projects for both iOS and Android, and it also works with the native Android and iOS platforms. It’s easy to use. With Maestro Studio, I can click on elements instead of typing the button ID. Maestro Studio also has an internal ChatGPT that makes writing tests even easier. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes Maestro disconnects from my Android device for no apparent reason. When that happens, I have to disconnect and then reconnect the device again to get it working. This is something that needs to be fixed on macOS. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I loved the easier syntax in form of yaml files, since I already know about tools like Cypress & Playwright, I think Maestro is solving the problem of complex code files and that's really cool. Additionally I also loved the record and play thing. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The thing that I didn't like was browser integration, or I should say, the current state of browser integration, since I work with a lot of web apps, I think this is a feature worth waiting for. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro is very easy to get started with, especially for mobile automation testing. Being open source is a big plus, and the documentation is clear and well written. It allows me to quickly create, maintain, and iterate on mobile test flows, which makes day-to-day testing more efficient. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

In some scenarios, especially on mobile screens without proper IDs or accessibility labels, it can be harder to reliably interact with elements. Also, my usage is more focused on mobile, so I don’t explore its web capabilities as much. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I love Maestro Studio and how easy it made testing for me. It's really great. UI focused testing like Maestro is what I wanted for a long time for Android. The initial setup was very easy and not hard. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The startup time is the only culprit for me with Maestro. I stopped running Maestro frequently since the running time was taking ages. I don't know if this can be fixed though as it might be an Android-specific issue. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Maestro is simple and fast to use. The YAML-based syntax is easy to read and write, tests are quick to set up, and it works reliably across iOS and Android. The built-in waiting and auto-retry logic reduces flakiness, making UI tests more stable and developer-friendly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

For more complex scenarios, the YAML approach can feel limiting. Debugging failures can be harder compared to full code-based frameworks, and advanced assertions or custom logic sometimes require workarounds. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I liked:

- Exceptional ease of use: Creating test flows is surprisingly simple and intuitive

- Low learning curve: We were able to create our first tests within hours

- User-friendly syntax: As easy as writing tests in Cypress or Playwright for web UI

- Quick setup: Installation and configuration much simpler compared to Appium

- High productivity: We quickly managed to cover complex scenarios

- Clear basic documentation: To get started, the documentation is sufficient

- Active community: Modern tool with good adoption Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I didn't like

- Slow execution performance: Tests are still relatively slow to execute

- Non-ideal speed for CI/CD: May impact total pipeline time if not optimized

- Confusing MCP configuration: Initial Maestro Cloud Platform setup was difficult to understand

- Limited MCP documentation: Could be clearer for advanced configurations

- Still slower than web tools: Compared to Cypress/Playwright, execution is noticeably slower Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like best about Maestro is its growing presence and visibility in the community. Through Twitter updates, videos, and shared examples, you increasingly come across Maestro in day-to-day conversations about mobile testing. This constant exposure makes it easy to stay informed about new features and best practices, and it creates confidence that the tool is actively maintained and evolving. As a result, Maestro feels more and more like a worthwhile and future-proof choice for mobile test automation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The biggest downside of Maestro is handling highly dynamic apps. When multiple apps are built from the same codebase but differ across branches or server-side configurations, maintaining Maestro tests becomes very difficult. Small changes in server settings or runtime behavior can significantly affect flows, making standard Maestro flows hard to reuse or keep stable. For apps with a lot of dynamic content and configuration-driven behavior, this increases maintenance effort and makes it challenging to establish reliable, scalable test coverage. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.