Top 10 Alternatives to Checkly for Playwright‑Based Testing

Introduction

Browser automation has evolved dramatically over the last decade. Early generations of UI testing were powered by Selenium, which standardized WebDriver and helped teams automate cross‑browser tests at scale. As front‑end stacks modernized and headless Chrome became mainstream, developer‑centric tools like Puppeteer appeared, followed by Playwright—a fast, reliable, and modern testing framework built by the team that originally worked on Puppeteer. Playwright, with its auto‑waits, cross‑browser support, and powerful debugging, quickly earned a place in CI pipelines and developer workflows.

Checkly emerged in this context as a commercial, Playwright‑based platform that combines synthetic monitoring and end‑to‑end testing. It brings “checks as code” to the web and API space, letting teams define browser and API checks, run them on schedules and in CI/CD, and alert on failures. Its strengths include broad test automation capabilities, modern workflows, and seamless CI/CD integration. Many teams use Checkly to monitor production journeys (logins, checkouts, critical API calls) and to run Playwright tests alongside API checks as part of release workflows.

As testing strategies mature, some teams look to complement or replace Checkly for reasons such as different deployment models, specific device coverage, managed Playwright scale‑out, or a desire for low‑code tooling. Below are ten credible alternatives—some are Playwright‑native runners, some are cloud device grids, and some offer codeless or service‑based approaches that may suit your team’s needs.

Overview: Top 10 Alternatives to Checkly

Here are the top 10 alternatives to Checkly for Playwright‑based or adjacent testing:

• Microsoft Playwright Testing

• BrowserStack Automate

• LambdaTest

• Sauce Labs

• BitBar (SmartBear)

• QA Wolf

• Mabl

• TestCafe Studio

• Waldo

• Repeato

Why Look for Checkly Alternatives?

While Checkly is a strong option for browser and API checks using Playwright, teams commonly explore alternatives for the following reasons:

• Managed scale for Playwright runs: You may want a first‑party, managed cloud specifically optimized for Playwright test execution, parallelization, and artifacts, without maintaining any runner infrastructure.

• Wider device/browser coverage: If you need extensive real device testing (iOS/Android) or deep cross‑browser matrices beyond what you currently use, a dedicated cloud grid might be more appropriate.

• Service‑based testing: Some teams prefer “done‑for‑you” test creation, triage, and maintenance to speed up coverage when engineering bandwidth is limited.

• Codeless or low‑code options: Product and QA teams may want to create tests without writing much code, particularly for UI‑driven scenarios or to reduce maintenance overhead.

• Domain‑specific needs: Pure mobile app testing, computer‑vision‑based testing, or specialized analytics/observability may require platforms designed for those use cases.

• Cost, compliance, or vendor fit: Budget constraints, required enterprise controls, or a need to consolidate vendors can steer teams to other platforms.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

1) Microsoft Playwright Testing

Microsoft Playwright Testing is a managed cloud service purpose‑built for Playwright test runs. It offers on‑demand scaling, parallel execution, and deep integration with the Playwright Test runner—delivering a streamlined experience for teams already invested in Playwright.

Key strengths:

• First‑party integration with Playwright: No adapters or custom shims required; it aligns with Playwright features and updates.

• Elastic scaling: Parallelize large test suites in the cloud to reduce feedback loops without building and maintaining your own runners.

• CI/CD fit: Works well with common CI tools and developer workflows; artifacts, traces, and videos are easy to access.

• Reduced infra overhead: Offloads browser provisioning, updates, and environment maintenance to the managed service.

• Predictable developer experience: Keeps your test code in Playwright while providing a managed execution layer.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly combines Playwright‑based browser checks with API checks, scheduling, and alerting for synthetic monitoring. Microsoft Playwright Testing focuses on executing your Playwright tests at scale rather than providing a monitoring product with alerts and dashboards.

• If you want production monitoring with API checks and alerting, Checkly has that built in. If you want a dedicated, managed cloud runner optimized for Playwright to accelerate CI pipelines, Microsoft’s service is a strong fit.

Best for:

• Teams that are already standardized on Playwright and want a managed, scalable, and fast execution environment without additional monitoring features.

2) BrowserStack Automate

BrowserStack Automate is a large, commercial device and browser cloud that supports Selenium, Playwright, Appium, and other frameworks. It provides extensive cross‑browser coverage and real device testing at scale.

Key strengths:

• Broad coverage: Access to numerous desktop browsers, browser versions, and real iOS/Android devices.

• Playwright support: Run Playwright tests on a managed, globally distributed cloud.

• Rich debugging: Videos, console logs, screenshots, and network logs help diagnose issues quickly.

• CI/CD integrations: Works with common pipelines and supports parallelization strategies for faster feedback.

• Enterprise features: Security controls, role‑based access, and support for enterprise use cases.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly focuses on synthetics and “checks as code” for web and API with Playwright. BrowserStack Automate is platform‑agnostic and provides a large device/browser cloud for running your tests.

• If you need scheduled monitoring with alerting and API checks, Checkly is more prescriptive. If your priority is massive cross‑device coverage and running Playwright (or mixed frameworks) at scale, Automate is a strong alternative.

Best for:

• Teams that need comprehensive cross‑browser and real‑device coverage with Playwright and other frameworks.

3) LambdaTest

LambdaTest is a cross‑browser testing platform that supports Selenium, Playwright, Appium, and Cypress. It offers a mix of cloud browsers and devices, as well as high‑performance runners.

Key strengths:

• Playwright and multi‑framework support: Run tests across your preferred frameworks on a unified platform.

• High‑speed orchestration: Options for fast, parallel execution to accelerate CI feedback.

• Broad coverage: Desktop browsers, mobile browsers, and device options for end‑to‑end coverage.

• Integrations: Works with common CI/CD systems and provides logs, videos, and snapshots for debugging.

• Cost flexibility: Pricing tiers that can accommodate different team sizes.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly provides browser and API checks with monitoring, alerting, and “as code” workflows tied to Playwright. LambdaTest functions primarily as a cloud grid and runner, so you bring your tests and assertions.

• If you need continuous synthetic monitoring with alerts, Checkly is specialized for that. If your goal is to execute Playwright tests quickly across environments, LambdaTest is a viable alternative.

Best for:

• Teams that want fast Playwright execution with wide browser/device coverage and flexible pricing.

4) Sauce Labs

Sauce Labs is a longstanding cloud platform for web and mobile testing, supporting Selenium, Appium, Playwright, and other frameworks. It offers real devices, emulators/simulators, and extensive debugging and analytics.

Key strengths:

• Mature platform: Proven reliability and scale for enterprise testing.

• Rich analytics and debugging: Videos, network capture, performance metrics, and advanced insights.

• Real devices and emulators: Cover end‑to‑end mobile use cases alongside web.

• Multi‑framework support: Run Playwright, Selenium, Appium, and more in one place.

• Enterprise readiness: Compliance certifications, SSO, access controls, and enterprise features.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly emphasizes synthetic monitoring and “checks as code” with browser and API checks. Sauce Labs focuses on broad test execution across devices and browsers, plus analytics.

• If you need robust cross‑device coverage with a deep debugging experience, Sauce Labs is compelling. If synthetic monitoring with alerting is central, Checkly may be more aligned.

Best for:

• Large teams or enterprises requiring a unified platform for web and mobile testing with strong analytics.

5) BitBar (SmartBear)

BitBar, part of SmartBear, is a cloud testing platform offering real devices and browsers for web and mobile. It supports frameworks like Selenium, Appium, and Playwright.

Key strengths:

• Real device cloud: Access to a large pool of physical iOS/Android devices for reliable mobile testing.

• Web and mobile coverage: Unify web and app testing under one platform.

• SmartBear ecosystem: Potential synergies with other SmartBear tools and workflows.

• CI/CD integrations: Compatible with common pipelines and orchestration tools.

• Multi‑framework support: Bring Playwright, Selenium, and Appium tests to the same cloud.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly targets Playwright‑based browser checks and API checks with monitoring and alerting. BitBar focuses on being a device and browser cloud for executing tests you author.

• If mobile device coverage is a priority alongside Playwright for web, BitBar is a solid alternative. For built‑in synthetic monitoring and alerts, Checkly is more prescriptive.

Best for:

• Teams emphasizing real‑device testing (mobile) plus web automation in one place.

6) QA Wolf

QA Wolf is a service‑plus‑tooling offering that builds, runs, and maintains end‑to‑end tests for you, using a Playwright‑based stack. It positions itself as “done‑for‑you” E2E coverage.

Key strengths:

• Done‑for‑you model: Dedicated engineers create and maintain Playwright tests, reducing burden on your team.

• Coverage acceleration: Reach high test coverage quickly without hiring a large QA team.

• Triage and maintenance: Failures are investigated, and flaky tests are fixed for you.

• Playwright foundation: Benefits from modern Playwright reliability while abstracting the heavy lifting.

• CI/CD alignment: Tests are integrated into your delivery pipelines with reporting.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly gives you the platform to write and run Playwright checks with API monitoring and alerting. QA Wolf provides the team and process to create and maintain tests on top of Playwright.

• If you lack bandwidth to author and maintain tests, QA Wolf can be attractive. If you want to keep everything in‑house with “checks as code” and synthetics, Checkly is better aligned.

Best for:

• Teams that want rapid E2E coverage and ongoing maintenance without building an internal QA automation function.

7) Mabl

Mabl is a low‑code, AI‑assisted E2E platform for web and API testing. It emphasizes ease of authoring, self‑healing, and SaaS‑first workflows, helping teams build and maintain tests with less code.

Key strengths:

• Low‑code authoring: Record and refine tests quickly, suitable for non‑developers and mixed teams.

• Self‑healing: Tests adapt to common UI changes to reduce maintenance overhead.

• Web and API coverage: Build end‑to‑end flows that span UI and back‑end endpoints.

• CI/CD integrations: Fit tests into modern pipelines easily with dashboards and reporting.

• Analytics and insights: Identify flaky tests and performance patterns to improve reliability.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly is code‑first with Playwright‑based checks and explicit API checks for synthetic monitoring and alerting. Mabl offers a low‑code approach with self‑healing and broader “test creation for everyone” positioning.

• If your team prefers low‑code authoring and wants built‑in resilience to UI changes, Mabl is appealing. If you want Playwright “checks as code” and production‑grade monitoring, Checkly is more specialized.

Best for:

• Teams seeking low‑code E2E and API testing with self‑healing and SaaS‑first ease of use.

8) TestCafe Studio

TestCafe Studio is a commercial, codeless IDE for creating and running TestCafe (web) tests. It provides a GUI for recording tests, adding assertions, and managing test suites without deep coding.

Key strengths:

• Codeless/low‑code workflow: Create browser tests in a visual IDE, helpful for non‑developers or hybrid teams.

• Stable execution model: TestCafe runs without external WebDriver dependencies.

• Cross‑browser support: Cover major desktop browsers with a single toolchain.

• Built‑in assertions and actions: Simplify common UI testing tasks.

• CI/CD compatibility: Export and run tests in your pipelines with reporting.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly uses Playwright under the hood and focuses on synthetics and API checks as code with alerting. TestCafe Studio is a codeless UI test builder and runner, not a monitoring platform.

• If your priority is visual test creation and you do not need Playwright or built‑in monitoring/alerting, TestCafe Studio could fit. If monitoring and “checks as code” are central, Checkly remains more aligned.

Best for:

• Teams that want a codeless UI testing experience for web without adopting Playwright.

9) Waldo

Waldo is a no‑code mobile testing platform for iOS and Android. It offers a recorder‑based workflow and runs tests in the cloud, enabling fast feedback without writing code.

Key strengths:

• No‑code authoring: Build mobile tests quickly with a recorder instead of scripts.

• Cloud execution: Run tests on managed device infrastructure with minimal setup.

• Visual diffing: Detect regressions in UI changes and user flows.

• Collaboration features: Share runs, annotate failures, and triage as a team.

• Continuous testing: Integrate with CI for automated feedback on each build.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly is aimed at web and API checks with Playwright‑based browser automation, not native mobile apps. Waldo specializes in mobile app testing with a codeless experience.

• If your focus is mobile apps and you want a simple, no‑code solution, Waldo is a good alternative category‑wise. For web synthetics and API monitoring, Checkly is built for that purpose.

Best for:

• Teams prioritizing native mobile app testing with a no‑code approach.

10) Repeato

Repeato is a codeless, computer‑vision‑driven mobile testing tool for iOS and Android. It aims to be resilient to UI structure changes by focusing on what appears on the screen rather than DOM or accessibility hierarchies alone.

Key strengths:

• Computer vision engine: Resilient test creation that is less brittle against UI layout changes.

• Codeless authoring: Build tests with minimal scripting, suitable for product and QA teams.

• Cross‑platform mobile: Cover iOS and Android flows consistently.

• CI/CD support: Integrates with pipelines for continuous feedback.

• Robustness to change: Reduces maintenance burden from minor UI tweaks.

How it compares to Checkly:

• Checkly does not target native mobile app testing. Repeato is designed specifically for mobile with a computer‑vision approach and codeless workflows.

• If mobile is your priority and you want tests that are resistant to UI churn, Repeato is compelling. For Playwright‑based web synthetics and API checks, Checkly remains the better fit.

Best for:

• Mobile‑first teams needing resilient, codeless app testing across iOS and Android.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a Checkly Alternative

Before you switch or augment your stack, evaluate the following:

• Project scope and platforms:

• Framework alignment:

• Ease of setup and maintenance:

• Execution speed and parallelization:

• CI/CD and developer experience:

• Monitoring and alerting:

• Reliability and flakiness controls:

• Team composition and ownership:

• Security, compliance, and data residency:

• Cost and scalability:

Conclusion

Checkly earned its place by combining Playwright‑based browser checks with API checks, monitoring, and “checks as code,” making it easy to run synthetic tests in CI and on schedules with alerting. For many teams, that remains a great balance of developer‑friendly testing and production monitoring.

However, priorities vary. If you want a first‑party, managed Playwright runner with elastic scaling, Microsoft Playwright Testing is a compelling option. If your needs center on broad browser/device coverage, deep debugging, and enterprise scale, platforms like BrowserStack Automate, LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, and BitBar provide robust device and browser clouds with Playwright support. If you prefer service‑based testing, QA Wolf can accelerate coverage by building and maintaining Playwright tests for you. For low‑code or codeless workflows, Mabl (web/API), TestCafe Studio (web), Waldo (mobile), and Repeato (mobile, computer vision) offer simplified authoring and maintenance.

Ultimately, the right choice depends on your scope (web vs. mobile), desired authoring style (code vs. low‑code), appetite for infrastructure management, and the balance between CI execution and production monitoring. Many teams even combine solutions—for example, using a device cloud for pre‑release coverage and a monitoring platform for production synthetics. Map your goals to the strengths listed here, run small proofs of concept, and choose the platform or mix of platforms that best aligns with your team’s workflows, budget, and long‑term testing strategy.