# Composal vs Spur

Both products support agent-driven testing and failure investigation. Composal organizes web verification around saved Scenarios, Discovery maps and Deep Scan Findings. Compare that workflow with Spur’s broader surface coverage and test-suite model.

## 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)

## Spur

Agentic QA across web and native mobile

Spur offers functional and exploratory testing across web and native mobile, with localization checks and release validation. Its MCP connection lets coding agents create, run and investigate tests in a Spur workspace.

## What each tool does

| Workflow | Composal | Spur |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [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. | ✓ Yes: Exploratory agents test non-linear user paths and report unexpected 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. | ✓ Yes: Supports plain-English test instructions and agent-assisted test creation. |
| [Run or inspect from a terminal](https://composal.com/product/cli) | ✓ Yes: Use the CLI to start and inspect verification runs and their Findings. | ✓ Yes: Connects to Claude Code through MCP to create, run and inspect hosted tests. |

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

## Where each fits

Consider Spur when native mobile and localization coverage are central to your release. Consider Composal when your priority is mapping and checking web journeys, then passing recorded evidence and reproduction steps to engineering.

## Try this evaluation

Give both products an authenticated checkout flow and an unexpected cart-editing path. Compare setup, editable expectations, exploratory findings and failure evidence. Use your coding agent to inspect each result, and trial native mobile separately if your release requires it.

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

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