How This Is Different From Traditional Testing Tools
Rihario uses AI-powered exploratory testing instead of scripted test cases. Unlike Playwright, Selenium, or Cypress where you write deterministic tests, Rihario explores your app and adapts to changes automatically. It's optimized for quick confidence checks, not comprehensive test coverage.
The Core Difference: Scripted vs Exploratory
Traditional Testing (Playwright, Selenium, Cypress)
Traditional tools require you to write scripts that define exactly what should happen:
Pros: Deterministic, repeatable, can integrate with CI/CD
Cons: Requires writing and maintaining scripts, breaks when selectors change, can't adapt to UI changes
Rihario (AI-Powered Exploration)
Rihario doesn't use scripts. You give it instructions in plain English, and the AI decides what to do:
Pros: No scripts to write or maintain, adapts to UI changes, natural language instructions
Cons: Probabilistic (not deterministic), can't guarantee all paths tested, requires human judgment
Detailed Comparison
| Aspect | Traditional Tools | Rihario |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Required | Write test scripts, define selectors, set up test framework | Point at URL, optionally add instructions |
| Maintenance | Update scripts when app changes, fix broken selectors | AI adapts automatically, no maintenance needed |
| Determinism | 100% deterministic - same input = same output | Probabilistic - same input = similar results |
| Coverage | Can achieve high coverage with enough tests | Explores what it finds, doesn't guarantee coverage |
| CI/CD Integration | Designed for CI/CD, can block deployments | Not designed for CI/CD, requires human judgment |
| Learning Curve | Need to learn test framework, JavaScript/TypeScript | No learning curve - just provide URL and instructions |
| Use Case | Comprehensive test suites, regression testing, CI/CD gates | Quick confidence checks, pre-deployment verification |
| Best For | QA teams, automation engineers, enterprise teams | Solo developers, indie builders, small teams |
When to Use Each
Use Traditional Testing Tools When:
- You need deterministic, repeatable tests
- You want to integrate tests into CI/CD pipelines
- You need test coverage metrics and audit trails
- You have dedicated QA resources to maintain tests
- You need to test specific edge cases or scenarios
- Compliance or regulatory requirements mandate scripted tests
Use Rihario When:
- You want quick confidence checks without writing scripts
- You don't want to maintain test infrastructure
- You care more about "does it feel broken?" than coverage metrics
- You ship fast and iterate often
- You want to catch obvious issues, not test every edge case
- You prefer AI adapting to changes over maintaining selectors
Can You Use Both?
Absolutely. Many developers use both:
- Traditional tools for critical paths, edge cases, and CI/CD gates
- Rihario for quick pre-deployment checks, visual regression, and exploratory testing
They complement each other. Use the right tool for each job.
Common Misconceptions
"Rihario replaces Playwright"
No. Rihario is a different approach - exploratory and probabilistic. Playwright is deterministic and scripted. They solve different problems.
"I can't use Rihario because I need test coverage"
Correct. If you need coverage metrics, use traditional tools. Rihario is for confidence, not coverage.
"Rihario is better because it doesn't require maintenance"
It's different, not necessarily better. You trade determinism and coverage for zero maintenance. Choose based on your needs.