# Composal vs QA.tech

QA.tech emphasizes change-triggered dynamic testing across web and mobile. Composal combines user-authored browser Scenarios with Discovery and Deep Scan, attaching recordings and reproduction steps to Findings.

## Composal

Composal sends AI browser agents to use your running web app and check the outcomes you care about. Define journeys as plain-English Scenarios, map existing flows with Discovery, or explore for bugs with Deep Scan. Runs keep recordings and reproduction steps so your team or coding agent can investigate a Finding.

[Verify documentation](https://composal.com/docs/verify)

## QA.tech

Dynamic agentic QA for web and mobile releases

QA.tech describes autonomous agents that exercise web and native mobile apps on pull requests, using visual interaction to report product behavior.

## What each tool does

| Workflow | Composal | QA.tech |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [Run browser journeys](https://composal.com/product/scenarios) | ✓ Yes: Run saved browser Scenarios and return recordings and reproducible Findings. | ✓ Yes: Runs automated checks against application behavior. |
| [Map application workflows](https://composal.com/product/discovery) | ✓ Yes: Discovery maps key application areas and user journeys. | ✓ Yes: Its QA agents explore web applications while investigating behavior. |
| [Explore for unexpected issues](https://composal.com/product/deep-scan) | ✓ Yes: Deep Scan explores the running application and reports reproducible issues. | ✓ Yes: QA agents explore the application and report behavioral issues. |
| [Describe checks in plain English](https://composal.com/product/scenarios) | ✓ Yes: Author Scenarios around the intended user outcome, then review the steps and expected results. | – Not confirmed: Check whether this product includes this workflow in your intended plan and setup. |
| [Run or inspect from a terminal](https://composal.com/product/cli) | ✓ Yes: Use the CLI to start and inspect verification runs and their Findings. | – Not confirmed: Check whether this product includes this workflow in your intended plan and setup. |

With setup means you supply code or configuration. Not confirmed means support for this workflow needs checking with the vendor.

## Where each fits

Choose QA.tech when automated pull-request coverage across web and native mobile is the primary requirement. Choose Composal when teams want to direct web journeys and open-ended exploration from a shared QA workspace.

## Try this evaluation

Connect each product to the same preview and ask it to verify an invoice workflow after a code change. Compare what gets selected for the PR, discovered beyond the expected path and returned as developer-ready evidence.

### Coverage

Which user outcomes must this release prove, and which specialist checks must stay in your existing stack?

### Setup

Who prepares accounts, test data, permissions and access to the deployment being tested?

### Evidence

Can the engineer reproduce a reported failure from the recording and steps, without asking the tester to investigate again?

### Ownership

Who updates the checks when the product changes, and can the team review what a passing result actually proves?

## Related comparisons

- [Composal vs Octomind](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-octomind.md)
- [Composal vs Autonoma](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-autonoma.md)
- [Composal vs MagicPod](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-magicpod.md)

[All comparisons](https://composal.com/compare.md)