We are using cookies for secure log-in and to improve our app.
First party only, no data krakens 🦑 Learn more in our privacy policy.
We took our Octomind testing platform and ran some use experiments with devs writing & running end-to-end tests. We wanted to compare the 2 approaches to increase productivity in testing.
We used Cursor as benchmark and had it generate Playwright tests, since Octomind uses Playwright test code under the hood.
The classic of the dev heavy vs. low-code dichotomy. Octomind works with an effortless, one-click setup and off-the-shelf support for test setup (environments, variables, etc.) Simply provide your web app's URL, and the platform is ready to roll. It's ideal for teams who value speed and ease, letting you jump straight into testing without worrying about detailed configuration.
In contrast, Cursor offers traditional software project flexibility - great if you’re an experienced developer comfortable with version control, node.js setup, and IDE configurations. This freedom is beneficial, yet it's important to note that setup requires more upfront effort and knowledge.
Crafting test cases in Octomind feels intuitive for users of different skill levels - describe your scenarios using natural language, and let the AI agent handle the rest. The test recorder is similarly frictionless. You don't need in-depth coding knowledge, it’s decently accessible for teams beyond software developers.
Cursor, on the other hand, uses AI to assist you in generating Playwright tests directly within your IDE. While powerful, Cursor’s effectiveness heavily depends on your domain knowledge and familiarity with coding tests. This offers precision, but less experienced users might face steep learning curves.
Octomind provides an integrated recorder and visual step editor to fix tests. Debugging is a guided and mostly visual experience and - you quickly see and correct exactly where tests deviate.
Debugging in Cursor requires a deeper dive. With no immediate visual aids, you must run tests, monitor execution, identify issues, and manually adjust code. It's precise, but might be straining until you identify the problem depending on your coding skill.
Octomind offers a comprehensive yet structured environment built atop Playwright. While it covers most testing scenarios -including complex ones like OTP and 2FA flows - it inherently restricts you to its features and integrations.
Cursor allows for the opposite - unlimited freedom. You're free to leverage any Playwright capability, ideal if your team thrives on customization and has expert knowledge. However, such liberty demands significant testing experience.
Octomind provides descriptive prompts, structured steps, screenshots, and built-in management capabilities (folders, tags, AI-driven searches). It’s an out-of the box, yet prescriptive approach.
In Cursor, structure depends entirely on your team's organizational skill. While it can provide incredibly tailored code structures, poorly managed tests can quickly become overwhelming, especially as your suite scales.
Octomind comes with a built-in test runner. Execution is seamless - everything from environments to CI/CD integrations and scheduling is automated. It also handles complex issues like nuxt hydration, shared authentication, or geo-based proxies which can become painful when DIYed very quickly.
To be fair to Cursor - it is an IDE - not an end-to-end testing platform. It doesn’t inherently handle execution logistics - it’s not what it’s built for. The responsibility for configuring CI/CD, environment management, parallel test execution, and other advanced setups lies entirely with your team, demanding substantial testing expertise.
To keep the entire testing workload in check, Octomind offers features for easy maintenance. It identifies root causes of failures, visually compares them to successful runs, and offers auto-maintenance solutions. It can, because it has built and run the tests.
Maintenance with Cursor will lead to manually inspecting and debugging tests. Although the AI can assist since it has access to your codebase, once you get into resolving complex issues, manual effort and advanced debugging skills are needed.
This comparison might seem like a stretch - Octomind and Cursor are 2 very different AI-assisted tools. However, their application area overlaps - they are both used in the app testing process. We discuss this often with our users who are also fervent users of AI IDEs. That’s why I decided to write this summary.
Choose Octomind / testing platform if your goal is a complete, streamlined testing solution that significantly reduces effort and allows broader team participation. Its built-in intelligence and intuitive maintenance workflows make it perfect for teams prioritizing productivity and ease of use.
Choose Cursor / AI-powered IDE if your priority is flexibility, customization, and absolute control over your testing processes. It’s perfect for seasoned developers comfortable navigating advanced test setups, deep debugging, and manual management. You would also need to invest a decent amount of time to set up the infrastructure for test execution and sort out advanced testing use cases like 2FA or email flows which come off the shelf in Octomind.
In the end, your decision depends on your preference - each tool caters distinctly to different team profiles and testing philosophies.
