Why choose Test Flows AI
If your goal is stable UI automation at high coverage, you need a workflow that’s fast to create and cheap to maintain. That’s where most traditional approaches break down.
Speed
Record flows, refine them in a timeline, and scale coverage faster than writing scripts from scratch.
Maintenance reduction
Self-healing locator strategies reduce brittleness so UI changes don’t constantly break your suite.
Reliability
Fewer false failures means teams trust results and run automation more often.
Cost efficiency
Improve coverage without hiring a large automation team or committing to heavy enterprise contracts.
Comparison: common approaches
| Approach | What it’s good at | Where it struggles |
|---|---|---|
| Selenium-style frameworks | Maximum flexibility for engineers | Slow to write, fragile selectors, high maintenance |
| Script-heavy record/playback | Quick demos and simple happy paths | Breaks under real apps, hard to keep stable at scale |
| Enterprise platforms | Centralized management and governance | Cost, complexity, slower iteration cycles |
| Test Flows AI | Fast creation + maintainability + stability | Best results when you standardize flows and validations |