AuditWard vs QA.tech
Both run agent-driven tests against a live web app without reading your source code. QA.tech is a dedicated QA platform for autonomous UI and end-to-end testing. AuditWard does QA in a real browser and runs a security scan with pentest tooling in the same audit, so each finding is also tagged to a compliance framework.
Capability comparison.
This table maps what each product does, drawn from each vendor's own documentation. QA.tech is a QA and end-to-end testing platform, so on the security rows it is not a like-for-like competitor. Where a capability is not documented on the QA.tech site, the cell says so rather than guessing.
| Capability | AuditWard | QA.tech |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Combined QA testing and security scanning in one audit | QA: autonomous functional and end-to-end testing |
| Browser-based UI testing | Yes, an Explorer agent runs a checklist in a real Chromium browser | Yes, vision-based agents interact with the UI like a user |
| Reads your source code | No, it tests the live target externally | No, it tests applications externally without reading source |
| Security and vulnerability scanning | Yes, with curl, testssl.sh, Nuclei, Nmap, Gobuster, nslookup, and WhatWeb | Not a documented feature |
| Per-finding compliance tagging | PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, GDPR, OWASP Top 10, HIPAA, ISO 27001 | Not a documented feature |
| MCP server for coding agents | Yes, six tools (qa_test, qa_status, qa_get_artifacts, qa_provide_context, qa_cancel, qa_report) | Yes, an MCP server with roughly sixteen tools |
| Supported MCP clients | Claude Code, Claude Desktop, any MCP client over Streamable HTTP | Cursor, Claude Code, and any MCP client |
| Generate a test from plain English | The Planner builds a checklist from a URL and instructions | Yes, an agent generates a test from a flow description |
| Authenticated app testing | Credential loop pauses at a login wall; answers are KMS-encrypted | Secure tunnel tool to reach a local dev server |
| CI/CD and project tool integration | Driven from a dashboard or a coding agent over MCP | Integrates with CI/CD and Jira, ClickUp, Linear |
| Output for a scan | Triaged, confidence-scored findings, annotated screenshots, pentest-style PDF report | Test run results streamed back, including into the chat |
| Published self-serve pricing | Yes: Basic free, Starter $49/mo, Team $199/mo, Business custom | Quote-based (Starter, Growth, Enterprise all show "Talk to us") |
QA.tech does not publish self-serve prices. Its pricing page lists Starter, Growth, and Enterprise tiers, all marked "Talk to us", so any monthly figure you see on a third-party aggregator is not a vendor-published price.
Where AuditWard differs.
The biggest difference is scope. QA.tech is a focused QA and end-to-end testing platform. AuditWard runs the same kind of browser-driven testing and then probes the target with pentest tooling, so one audit returns both quality issues and security findings tagged to frameworks. If you only need functional QA, that breadth is something you may not want.
QA and security in one pass
An LLM Planner builds a checklist from your URL and instructions, an Explorer agent runs it in a real Chromium browser, and security tools (curl, testssl.sh, Nuclei, Nmap, Gobuster, nslookup, WhatWeb) probe the same target. QA.tech covers the functional testing half; it does not run vulnerability scanning.
Both ship an MCP server
This is common ground. QA.tech ships an MCP server (roughly sixteen tools) that connects its testing agents to Cursor, Claude Code, and any MCP client. AuditWard exposes six MCP tools (qa_test, qa_status, qa_get_artifacts, qa_provide_context, qa_cancel, qa_report) so a coding agent can start a combined QA and security audit and pull the report back.
Per-finding compliance tagging
AuditWard tags each finding to PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, GDPR, OWASP Top 10, HIPAA, and ISO 27001, so the evidence lines up with framework work. QA.tech is a QA platform, and per-finding compliance mapping is not a documented feature of it.
A credential loop for scans behind a login
When AuditWard hits a login wall, the scan pauses with structured questions. You answer with qa_provide_context or in the dashboard and it resumes; answers are KMS-encrypted. QA.tech offers a secure tunnel tool to reach a local dev server, which solves a different problem.
Where QA.tech may fit better.
QA.tech is the better pick when your main need is deep functional and end-to-end QA, not security scanning. It is a dedicated QA platform built around autonomous, no-code-access test agents, and it does that one job in more depth than the QA half of AuditWard.
Deep functional QA coverage
If broad end-to-end web coverage matters more than vulnerability findings, QA.tech is purpose-built for it. Its Growth tier also covers mobile iOS and Android testing.
A self-maintaining QA agent
QA.tech generates a test from a plain-English flow, adds it to a test plan, and positions its vision-based agents as resilient to UI refactors. It tests externally, without reading your source.
PR and CI-centered workflows
Targeted runs (only the tests touching a changed file) stream results into the chat, and it integrates with CI/CD and tools like Jira, ClickUp, and Linear for multi-application test flows.
Does AuditWard replace a manual pentest? No.
AuditWard runs real pentest tooling and reports triaged, confidence-scored findings, but it is not a certified penetration test and it is not a PCI Approved Scanning Vendor. It complements a manual pentest by catching issues early and giving you evidence to act on; it does not replace the human review. It runs no denial-of-service tests, and takeover weaknesses are detected and reported only, never exploited.
QA.tech vs AuditWard questions.
Is AuditWard a QA.tech alternative?
It overlaps on agent-driven browser testing, so for that need it is an alternative. The difference is that AuditWard runs a security scan in the same audit and tags findings to compliance frameworks, while QA.tech is a focused QA and end-to-end testing platform.
Does QA.tech do security scanning?
No. QA.tech is a QA and functional testing product. Its site does not mention security or vulnerability scanning, so it is not a like-for-like competitor on the security half of AuditWard. If you need both quality and security findings from one run, that is where AuditWard differs.
Do both have an MCP server?
Yes. QA.tech ships an MCP server (about sixteen tools) that connects its testing agents to Cursor, Claude Code, and any MCP client. AuditWard ships an MCP server with six tools so a coding agent can start a combined QA and security audit and fetch the report.
Which one should I pick?
Pick QA.tech if your main need is deep functional and end-to-end QA, including mobile on its Growth tier. Pick AuditWard if you want QA plus a real security scan in one pass, with findings tagged to PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, GDPR, OWASP Top 10, HIPAA, and ISO 27001.
Is AuditWard a penetration test?
No. AuditWard runs real pentest tooling and reports findings, but it is not a certified penetration test and not a PCI Approved Scanning Vendor. It complements a manual pentest and gives you evidence to act on; it does not replace the human review.