What QA.tech is
QA.tech is an AI-based QA testing platform whose home page promises "Agentic QA for teams that ship fast and stay safe". You describe what to test in a chat interface, and autonomous agents explore your app and run the checks, without selectors or scripts to maintain. This summary comes from its own site and docs, not a hands-on QA.tech review. As of September 2026:
- Where it runs. A chat interface for describing test scenarios in plain English, plus a GitHub integration that tests pull requests against Vercel preview deployments and can post results back to the PR.
- How it plans. Agents work from plain-language goals rather than a script or a set of selectors, so tests are built to keep working as the product's interface changes (home page).
- What it tests. Web, mobile web, iOS and Android apps, running end-to-end, regression, exploratory and dynamic tests.
- When it runs. Continuously: on pull requests, at merge, and on scheduled passes against production.
- What you get when something fails. Screenshots, logs and a plain-language explanation of what the agent found.
QA.tech says it is built for engineering teams that want to move fast without slowing down for manual QA. The Stockholm company raised a $1 million pre-seed round and, six months later, a €3 million seed round led by PROfounders, with Curiosity and byFounders also investing (FinSMEs).
Why teams look for a QA.tech alternative
QA.tech already tests continuously against pull requests, so teams rarely look for a QA.tech alternative because nothing is running. The usual reason is what happens after a run finishes: turning a pass or fail into a decision someone can sign off on.
- A record for the person who approves. QA.tech reports results with screenshots and logs on a pull request or a scheduled run. A product owner or QA lead deciding whether to ship a release wants a plain account of what was checked, what failed, what is still open and what was not covered.
- Your design system and business rules. Autonomous exploration can complete a flow while a price is wrong or a component is off-brand, so some teams want checks against their own design tokens and business rules too.
- Sign-off outside engineering. Some releases need approval from people who never open a pull request or read a test log.
In fairness, QA.tech's continuous pull-request and production checks catch regressions earlier than a release-time review can, and its plain-English chat interface needs no code access to set up.
QA.tech vs ShipperAG at a glance
QA.tech runs autonomous agents continuously against your app; ShipperAG checks each release and hands your team evidence to sign. Here is how they compare as of September 2026.
| Aspect | QA.tech | ShipperAG |
|---|---|---|
| Built for | Engineering teams that want continuous AI testing on every pull request and in production | Product and engineering teams that need evidence to approve each release |
| Approach | Autonomous AI agents explore your app from plain-English scenarios and run checks without selectors or scripts | AI QA specialists check each release against your requirements, design system and business rules |
| Who writes and maintains tests | You describe scenarios in chat; agents adapt as the product's interface changes, so there is no selector suite to maintain | No suite to write: a coordinator picks the specialists each change needs, within your limits |
| How findings are checked | Each run reports screenshots, logs and an explanation from that single agent run | An independent verifier re-runs every finding in a fresh session; deterministic checks decide pass or fail |
| Evidence and sign-off | Pass and fail results on pull requests and scheduled runs, with screenshots and logs | Verified, Issue found, Needs input and Not covered, sealed in an evidence ledger, plus a shareable report for sign-off |
| What it tests | Web, mobile web, iOS and Android, through end-to-end, regression, exploratory and dynamic testing | 13 quality areas, through real Chromium sessions and HTTP and API calls; Firefox, Safari and real devices not covered |
| Pricing model (as published) | Three plans (Starter, Growth, Enterprise); no prices published, every plan routes to "Talk to us" | From $149 a month, after a free 45-day trial |
| Availability | Available now, self-serve onboarding on Starter | Private pilot (waitlist) |
Want evidence alongside your QA.tech runs? Start with a free 45-day trial, no card.
Work email only. We keep your email, team size, plan choice and the page you joined from, only to contact you about the ShipperAG pilot. No spam.
QA.tech pricing, as of 30 September 2026
As of 30 September 2026, QA.tech publishes three plans by feature, not by price; every plan links to "Talk to us" rather than a listed monthly figure (QA.tech pricing, checked 30 September 2026):
- Starter: for individuals and small teams — 1 user, 3 parallel test runs, standard model access, 2 environments, web and web-app exploratory testing only, unlimited test creation, 30-day data retention, self-serve onboarding, email support.
- Growth: for product teams — up to 5 users, custom parallel test runs, custom environments, adds mobile, API, voice and dynamic PR testing, multi-application test flows, scheduled test plans, 90-day retention, guided proof-of-concept onboarding, a shared Slack or Teams channel.
- Enterprise: custom user count and parallel runs, a fine-tuned model option, unlimited environments, every testing type, a dedicated support engineer with an SLA, SSO, private network access and custom contract terms.
No plan lists a monthly or annual price; each ends in a "Talk to us" conversation with sales. If price transparency is your reason for looking at a QA.tech alternative, ShipperAG publishes its price: from $149 a month for 20 release checks, after a free 45-day trial; it is in a private pilot.
Where ShipperAG is different
QA.tech is built to test continuously while your product runs. As a QA.tech alternative, ShipperAG is built for the step after that: deciding whether a specific release is ready, and recording why.
- Separate roles. A coordinator picks the specialists a change needs, within your limits, and specialists run the checks. An independent verifier re-runs every finding in a fresh session before anything counts as confirmed.
- Real checks decide. A real Chromium browser, HTTP and API calls, automated accessibility rules and visual comparison against your design tokens. Language models help read context and write checks; a model's opinion alone can never mark anything verified.
- It asks instead of guessing. When requirements are unclear or contradictory, the item is marked Needs input, with a precise question.
- Gaps are stated. Anything outside what was checked is listed as Not covered, including other browsers and real devices.
- A record people can sign. Results are recorded in an evidence ledger. A person signs off, or shares a self-contained HTML report with the stakeholders who approve the release; our UAT sign-off template shows what that approval should record.
The checks come from ShipperAG's AI QA specialists, and hand-written and AI-assisted changes get the same checks. See how to test AI-generated code.
When QA.tech is the better choice
Not every team needs a QA.tech alternative. QA.tech is the better fit when:
- You want continuous coverage without writing selectors. Its agents explore the app from plain-English goals and are built to adapt as the interface changes.
- Native mobile matters. It tests iOS and Android apps, not only responsive web.
- You want it inside your GitHub flow today. Its GitHub integration tests pull requests against Vercel previews and can report back automatically.
- You want to start without code access. QA.tech says no access to your codebase is required to set it up.
If you want AI agents watching every pull request and production deploy starting this week, QA.tech is the practical choice. The two can also sit side by side: QA.tech running continuously, and a release check before you ship.
What ShipperAG does not do
ShipperAG is new, and it is not right for every job:
- It is not generally available or self-serve. It is a private pilot with a waitlist: teams start with a free 45-day trial with up to 20 release checks, and paid plans start at $149 a month.
- It does not test native iOS or Android apps; checks run against web and mobile web only, in Chromium.
- It runs in Chromium only. Phone and tablet sizes are emulated; Firefox, Safari and real devices are not covered, and reports list them as not covered.
- It does not replace a maintained regression suite that runs on every pull request; it is designed to run alongside one, against preview and staging builds and inside CI pipelines you configure.
- It only tests targets you own or have written permission to test, and it stays inside the hosts you allow.
Other QA.tech alternatives
ShipperAG is not the only QA.tech alternative. Two others are worth comparing.
- Momentic lets you write end-to-end tests for web and mobile in plain English and runs them on hosted browsers and devices, with a free tier (Momentic pricing). See our Momentic alternative comparison.
- TestSprite is an AI testing agent built for developers, with an MCP server, an open-source CLI and a GitHub App that tests pull requests, from a free plan (TestSprite pricing). See our TestSprite alternative comparison.
For the wider field, browse all alternatives and comparisons.
Sources: QA.tech home page and pricing, checked 30 September 2026; QA.tech seed funding, FinSMEs (13 May 2024); Momentic home page and pricing; TestSprite home page and pricing. Competitor details change; check their websites for the latest. Checked 30 September 2026.