![vishwa d.](/assets/transparent-ad5be28fbcd25b7b08d2cebe1d957125437fb5407d75ee717965ad22c8808791.gif "vishwa d.")
VD

vishwa d.

Quality Engineer

Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.)

8/20/2026

"Why Gallabox Chose testRigor"

4.5/5

What do you like best about testRigor?

Before getting into the modules, I have to give a shout-out to the testRigor support team. Their responses have been seamless, and they’ve been really helpful in understanding and resolving my queries quickly.

This was also my first time trying a true no-code automation tool, and honestly, I didn’t expect it to be this good. testRigor has been better than many of the automation tools I’ve used before. Being able to write tests in plain English instead of dealing with complex code, locators, or selectors makes a huge difference and saves a lot of time.

The regression testing part is another area I really like. It’s surprisingly simple to create, maintain, and run regression tests without spending hours fixing automation scripts. Overall, testRigor has made automation feel much more straightforward and manageable. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about testRigor?

There are a few areas where I think testRigor could be improved. The recent UI felt a little overwhelming and less professional to me because there are a lot of options presented on a single screen. A cleaner and more organized layout would make the overall experience easier to navigate.

Pricing is another concern, especially for teams with a large number of test cases. We currently have 1200 + test cases and use four servers, so adding another server becomes difficult to justify to management because of the additional cost. We don’t use the AI features heavily either we mainly draft, save, and run our tests, with some use of Claude MCP so a more flexible or usage-based pricing model would be helpful for teams like ours.

I also feel there are sometimes too many commands available for performing a single action. Having two or three well-tested and stable commands instead of many alternatives would make the platform easier to use. A few commands have also been inconsistent or flaky at times, which can be frustrating when maintaining a large automation suite.

Finally, execution speed could be improved. Compared with tools like Playwright or Selenium, I’ve noticed that testRigor can feel slower during execution. Improving performance and stability would make a big difference, especially for larger test suites. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What problems is testRigor solving and how is that benefiting you?

The biggest advantage for us has been that testRigor is no-code. Whenever a new backlog ticket comes in for automation, I don't have to worry about writing logic or dealing with script failures the way I would with a code-based tool. Since tests are written in plain English, they're easy to fix, and just as important, easy for anyone on the team to understand not just the person who wrote it. Debugging is straightforward because you're reading a description of what should happen, not digging through selectors or stack traces.

The other big win for us is the MCP integration with Claude. We can draft and run test scenarios directly through Claude, which has made the whole process a lot more efficient. Because of this, our releases have become far more realistic to plan around . we're now shipping 2 to 3 releases to production every week, and that's only possible because our regression suite is strong and stable enough to give us confidence at that pace. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Show More

Current UserValidated ReviewerSource: Organic

See what 25 reviewers think of testRigor

4.7 out of 5 · Verified reviews from real users

[
Read all reviews
](https://www.g2.com/products/testrigor/reviews)