Your checkout broke on Tuesday.
A customer told you on Thursday.

Rima is a record-and-replay browser testing platform. Instead of writing test code, you install the Rima extension for Chrome or Firefox and click through a flow in your app the way a real user would (signing up, checking out, editing a record), and Rima captures every step. Behind the scenes it generates a real Playwright script with resilient locators (test IDs, roles, labels, text), so the flow you recorded replays on the same engine professional developers use. Tests run in Rima's managed cloud on a schedule you choose, or locally against private environments through the rima CLI. Every cloud run captures screenshots, video, and a Playwright trace, and results land in a dashboard your whole team can read. Rima exists so the people who know the product best (QA, support, product managers, founders) can protect its core flows without waiting on an automation engineer.

Rima has a free plan and three paid plans, priced per active workspace seat. The Free plan costs $0, and signing up doesn't ask for a credit card; checkout only happens if you choose a paid plan. Monthly plans are Starter at $5, Pro at $12, and Business at $25 per seat. Yearly plans are Starter at $50, Pro at $120, and Business at $250 per seat, which gives twelve months for the price of ten and saves 17%. Higher tiers raise the limits on projects, tests per project, monthly cloud runs, concurrency, and run retention, and the top tier adds features like a custom workspace subdomain. Because pricing is per seat, a five-person team on the cheapest paid plan pays $25 per month, or $250 per year. New seats on yearly plans are prorated to the renewal date. The full limits are listed on the pricing page.

No. Rima is designed so you can create, run, and maintain browser tests without writing any code. You record a test by clicking through your app in the browser extension, and you add assertions (Rima calls them validations) by pointing at the things that matter: this text appears, the URL is correct, this element exists. Scheduling, run history, and failure evidence all live in a web dashboard. Under the hood, every recording becomes a standard Playwright script with sensible locators, which matters for two reasons: your tests inherit Playwright's auto-waiting, the main defense against flaky tests, and any developer on your team can read exactly what a test does. So developers aren't excluded; they're just not required. Teams often split the work: QA and product people record and maintain the flows, while developers open the traces when something genuinely breaks.

Playwright, Cypress, and Selenium are excellent code frameworks: developers write tests in TypeScript, JavaScript, or another language, run them on infrastructure they operate, and maintain them like any other code. Rima is a different layer: a complete product where tests are recordings rather than code, execution is a managed cloud (or your own machine via the CLI), and scheduling, video, traces, and team workspaces are built in rather than assembled from parts. The Playwright comparison is special because Rima runs on Playwright: recordings become real Playwright scripts, so you get that engine's speed and auto-waiting stability without writing the code yourself. If your team prefers hand-written tests, those frameworks are the right choice, and we say so plainly. Read the honest head-to-heads: Rima vs Playwright, Rima vs Cypress, and Rima vs Selenium.

Yes. Cloud runs cover anything reachable from the internet, and for everything else Rima has two answers. The rima CLI local runner executes the same recorded tests from a machine inside your network, such as a laptop, an office server, or a box in your VPC, so staging environments, intranets, and localhost builds never need to be exposed publicly. Results still report back to the dashboard, so the team sees local runs alongside cloud runs in one history. Alternatively, secure tunnels let Rima's cloud reach a private environment through an outbound connection you control, without opening inbound firewall ports. Choosing between them is mostly a policy question: the local runner keeps all browser traffic inside your network, while tunnels keep execution in the managed cloud. Both approaches are documented step by step on the local runner page and in the docs.

Evidence, not just a red X. Every Rima cloud run captures screenshots on failure, a full video of the browser session, and a Playwright trace: a step-by-step record of what the browser did, what the page looked like at each moment, and exactly which action failed. Runs live in a shareable report, so a developer can open the trace while a product manager watches the video, and nobody has to reproduce the bug from a stack trace alone. Scheduled runs can send email summaries, so a regression that broke overnight is in your inbox before standup. Failures also show which validation missed (the exact text, URL, or element check that didn't hold), which usually points straight at the change that caused it. And because recorded steps map to real user actions, "the checkout test failed at the payment step" reads like a bug report a human would write.