QA.tech alternative: agents that act as users

QA.tech is sales-led: its pricing page lists Starter, Growth and Enterprise with "Talk to us" and no prices, and it offers a proof of concept on your two or three most critical journeys. People look elsewhere when they want to try agents on a link today, when they want public prices, or when they want agents that play different users instead of running a saved test plan.

• QA.tech: plain-language tests kept as a suite, rerun on pull requests, on a schedule and from CI, for web and native mobile.
• Mimiq: no suite to keep. Agents try a task as different users, about 5 to 15 minutes for 5 agents.
• QA.tech: pricing on request, with Starter, Growth and Enterprise plans and a proof of concept to start.
• Mimiq: first test free, then a $9 Starter (120 credits that never expire) or monthly plans from $19.
• Both: no test scripts or selectors, runs on a pull request's preview, and an MCP server for coding agents.

QA.tech describes itself as an AI QA testing platform that runs autonomous agents against live web and native mobile apps, with "no scripts, no selectors". Tests are written in plain language, and its AI chat assistant can analyze your application, create tests for the paths you describe and suggest more for you to approve.

Its docs say a pull request review runs on a preview environment or after merge. It starts when a pull request opens or updates, or when someone mentions @qatech, creates tests for new features, runs the relevant ones and posts the results as comments with screenshots and failure breakdowns. Saved test plans can also run manually, on a schedule, from CI or through the API. It lists GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket, GitHub Actions, CircleCI and Jenkins, Vercel and Netlify, Jira and Linear, and an MCP server for Cursor, Claude Code and Codex.

Its agents can sign in with credentials, email codes, magic links, authenticator codes or SMS. Pricing is not public: the pricing page shows Starter, Growth and Enterprise with a "Talk to us" link on each, and describes a proof of concept that starts with two or three of your most critical journeys.

Mimiq sends AI agents to use your web app. You paste a link and give a task in plain words, such as "Sign up and start using it". Each agent opens the app in its own real browser, plays a person with a reason to be there, and works toward the task for up to 40 steps. The report shows what broke (errors on screen, buttons that do nothing, forms that reject good input, dead ends), what the browser caught on the site (JavaScript errors, requests that failed or answered 4xx or 5xx, and requests slower than 3 seconds, ranked by how many agents hit each), and where each agent got stuck or gave up and why, in its own words, with the step and a screenshot. The problems are ranked, with suggested fixes.

You can run it by pasting a link in the app, from a coding agent through the MCP server at mcp.mimiqai.com (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, VS Code and Windsurf), or on every preview deploy with the GitHub Action github.com/victorgulchenko/mimiq-preview-check, which works with Vercel, Netlify and Cloudflare Pages previews, leaves one pull request comment and can fail the check. Agents get a working inbox for verification codes. With paid credits they can also sign in with a test account and open protected previews, using a Vercel bypass secret or basic auth.

Mimiq does not write or export test scripts, does not test native mobile apps, and does not predict how many real people will finish. Every agent is simulated, agents choose their own paths so two runs can differ, and a run is not exhaustive. Agents cannot pay with real cards, and a CAPTCHA can stop them.

Both skip test scripts and both can run on a pull request's preview. The difference is what each one hands back. QA.tech keeps your flows as tests and reruns them, so you learn whether the paths you chose still work, which fits a release process.

Mimiq keeps no suite. Each run is a fresh set of agents, each playing a person with a reason to be there, and the report is about their experience: the errors and slow requests the browser caught, where one gave up and why in its own words, and wording that sent a newcomer the wrong way. A test plan checks the outcomes it names; it does not tell you that a newcomer would not understand a step.

Neither is exhaustive. QA.tech's own guide says agent runs are not deterministic and slower than scripts, calls agentic testing a good fit for a pull request check and a poor fit for a pre-commit hook, and advises keeping a script when a flow is stable and business-critical. The same holds for Mimiq runs: two runs can find different things.

Choose QA.tech when you need native iOS or Android app testing, which Mimiq does not do, when you want a maintained set of tests that run on every pull request, on a schedule and from CI, or when you need SSO and enterprise terms and want a vendor to guide a proof of concept.

Choose Mimiq when you have a link or a preview and no suite yet, when you want a first read in minutes without a call, when you want public prices, or when you want agents built from your own customers on a staging build.

Mimiq pricing is public: the first test is free with a free account (Google sign-in, no card), and the account includes 50 credits. An agent uses 5 credits, so 5 agents use 25. After that it is a $9 Starter (120 credits that never expire) or monthly plans from $19. Mimiq is not a regression suite. If the same checks must run the same way on every release, QA.tech or a scripted suite is the right tool.