AI QA DirectoryReport a change

Comparisons

Opkey vs QA Wolf

Opkey (Agentic end-to-end testing) and QA Wolf (Agentic end-to-end testing) differ on 4 documented facts below. Each cell shows its evidence level, source and verification date. This page does not rank or rate either tool.

Oldest fact on this page:

Facts side by side

Opkey and QA Wolf, fact by fact, with evidence per cell
FactOpkeyQA Wolf
Category
Agentic end-to-end testing (also Test maintenance and self-healing, Natural-language test authoring)
Vendor-statedSource
Agentic end-to-end testing (also Managed AI QA services)
DocumentedSource
Status
Active
Vendor-statedSource
Active
DocumentedSource
Test creation
Recording, Natural language
Vendor-statedSource
Prompt to test, Natural language, Code generation
DocumentedSource
Test output
Not documented
Not documented
Mixed
DocumentedSource
Surfaces
Web, Mobile native, API, Desktop, ERP
Vendor-statedSource
Web, Mobile native, Desktop
DocumentedSource
Hosting
Cloud, Self-hosted
Vendor-statedSource
Cloud
DocumentedSource
Pricing model
Not documented
Not documented
Usage credits, Managed service, Enterprise quote
DocumentedSource
Published prices
Not documented
Not documented
Platform (AI credits): 1¢ per AI credit (usage-based); Platform (runner minutes): 15¢ per runner minute (usage-based)
DocumentedSource
Free tier
Not documented
Not documented
Not documented
Not documented
CI integrations
Jenkins, Azure DevOps, Other
Vendor-statedSource
GitHub Actions, GitLab, CircleCI, Other
DocumentedSource
Self-healing
Vendor stated
Vendor-statedSource
Documented
DocumentedSource
Agent integration
Not documented
Not documented
QA Wolf MCP, installed as a plugin for Claude Code (qawolf/agent-plugins marketplace) and Codex; other coding agents via client-specific setup guide
DocumentedSource
Open source
Not documented
Not documented
Not documented
Not documented

Documented differences

Listed only where both tools document the fact, or where one documents it and the other's documentation does not mention it. Vendor-stated values appear in the table but do not create a difference here.

  • Test output: not documented for Opkey; a vendor runner plus exportable framework code for QA Wolf. [1]
  • Pricing model: not documented for Opkey; usage-credit, managed-service and enterprise-quote pricing for QA Wolf. [1]
  • Agent integration: not documented for Opkey; yes for QA Wolf. [1]
  • Published prices: not documented for Opkey; listed for QA Wolf. [1]

When each fits

Opkey

The documentation for Opkey does not state enough scope to say when it fits. The fact sheet lists what is documented.

Fact sheet for Opkey

QA Wolf

Fits a team that needs a vendor runner plus exportable framework code as test output. Documented for QA Wolf.

Sources: [1]

Drawn from documented scope only. Neither text compares the two tools on quality.

Sources

  1. opkey.com (Opkey: Category)
  2. docs.qawolf.com (QA Wolf: Category; QA Wolf: Self-healing; QA Wolf: Agent integration)
  3. opkey.com (Opkey: Status)
  4. qawolf.com (QA Wolf: Status; QA Wolf: Pricing model; QA Wolf: Published prices)
  5. opkey.com (Opkey: Test creation; Opkey: Surfaces; Opkey: CI integrations; Opkey: Self-healing)
  6. docs.qawolf.com (QA Wolf: Test creation)
  7. docs.qawolf.com (QA Wolf: Test output)
  8. docs.qawolf.com (QA Wolf: Surfaces; QA Wolf: Hosting)
  9. opkey.com (Opkey: Hosting)
  10. docs.qawolf.com (QA Wolf: CI integrations)

Spotted an outdated or wrong fact about Opkey vs QA Wolf? Send the source and we apply it at the next monthly update.

Report a change