# Composal vs QA Wolf

The choice includes how much suite ownership you want to delegate. Composal gives teams browser Scenarios, exploratory scans and evidence they can pass to a coding agent.

## 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 Wolf

AI automation with managed QA expertise

QA Wolf combines test creation agents, execution infrastructure and QA experts. Its platform advertises Playwright and Appium coverage with connections to coding agents, GitHub and Slack.

## What each tool does

| Workflow | Composal | QA Wolf |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [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. | – Not confirmed: Check whether this product includes this workflow in your intended plan and setup. |
| [Explore for unexpected issues](https://composal.com/product/deep-scan) | ✓ Yes: Deep Scan explores the running application and reports reproducible issues. | – Not confirmed: Check whether this product includes this workflow in your intended plan and setup. |
| [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

Consider QA Wolf for a managed testing relationship and broad web/mobile coverage. Consider Composal when your team wants to direct web verification from the product, CLI or agent tools.

## Try this evaluation

Ask each vendor to cover a two-role approval workflow. Evaluate who writes and maintains the checks, how failures are triaged, and whether the evidence identifies the actual broken outcome.

### 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 Checksum](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-checksum.md)
- [Composal vs Testers.ai](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-testers-ai.md)
- [Composal vs mabl](https://composal.com/compare/composal-vs-mabl.md)

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