--- title: "agent-qa vs QA Use" description: "Compare agent-qa vs QA Use by Desplega for E2E testing: local YAML, MCP, execution ownership, behavioral memory, native mobile coverage, and failure evidence." canonical_url: "https://vostride.com/qa-use-alternative" md_url: "https://vostride.com/qa-use-alternative.md" last_updated: "2026-09-07T21:53:06+05:30" --- # agent-qa vs QA Use > Compare agent-qa vs QA Use by Desplega for E2E testing: local YAML, MCP, execution ownership, behavioral memory, native mobile coverage, and failure evidence. A QA Use alternative that keeps the runner yours. QA Use by Desplega already brings YAML, MCP, and coding-agent skills to browser testing. agent-qa adds a locally controlled QA runtime, reviewable behavioral memory, and native Android and iOS coverage. Try agent-qa, a source-available QA runtime for a recurring verification loop your team owns: test expectations in YAML, execution on your laptop or CI runner, configurable models, and evidence your coding agent can inspect before a focused rerun. ## The choice for recurring QA agent-qa is the stronger fit for engineering teams that want repo-owned recurring QA across web and native mobile, with direct model configuration and behavioral memory they can review. QA Use already covers local test files and agent integration; the deciding advantage is control of the runtime and its retained product knowledge. Sources reviewed 2026-09-07 by Vostride. > This comparison is based on publicly available information. Product capabilities and pricing can change; verify details with each vendor before making a purchase decision. ## Capability comparison - **Reviewable YAML expectations.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Yes. Both keep test definitions in YAML. QA Use includes named actions and assertions; agent-qa expresses journeys and expected outcomes as natural-language steps, with optional hooks and per-step controls. Existing YAML ownership is worth preserving during a move. Sources: [QA Use: test format, execution architecture and CI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/SETUP.md), [agent-qa: first test and expectations](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/first-test). - **Control of the execution runtime.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Partial. QA Use documents local browser operation alongside a Desplega API-backed execution architecture. agent-qa runs the QA engine in your workspace or CI environment, with configured model and device services. A local browser and a locally controlled runner are separate choices. Sources: [QA Use: test format, execution architecture and CI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/SETUP.md), [agent-qa: coding-agent verification loop](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/coding-agent-workflow). - **MCP and coding-agent workflows.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Yes. QA Use ships MCP and Claude Code verification skills. agent-qa also supplies MCP and packaged skills, including test authoring, run inspection and failure triage through local dashboard-backed services. Both can participate in an agent's development loop. Sources: [QA Use: MCP integration](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/MCP.md), [QA Use by Desplega: repository and CLI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use), [agent-qa: local execution MCP](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/mcp), [agent-qa: coding-agent verification loop](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/coding-agent-workflow). - **Behavioral memory under review.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Partial. Desplega's related Argus product says it remembers product context. agent-qa makes its memory lifecycle explicit: product, suite and test observations are editable Markdown, retrieved for later steps and curated after runs. The cited QA Use and Argus docs do not establish that same file-review workflow. Sources: [Desplega Argus: retained product context](https://www.desplega.ai/argus), [QA Use: test format, execution architecture and CI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/SETUP.md), [agent-qa: behavioral memory](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/memory). - **Direct model configuration.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Partial. agent-qa exposes named model configurations and compatible provider endpoints in project config. QA Use's documented CLI setup centers on a Desplega API key and app configuration. Its setup guide does not establish the same direct runner-level choice of model provider. Sources: [QA Use by Desplega: repository and CLI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use), [agent-qa: model and runtime configuration](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/configuration/global-config). - **Web and native mobile targets.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Partial. QA Use documents browser E2E testing. agent-qa also runs native Android and iOS targets through configured Appium devices, using the same CLI and test format. Native tests still need a device, app build and explicit app-state policy. Sources: [QA Use by Desplega: repository and CLI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use), [agent-qa: native mobile targets](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/mobile-testing). - **Evidence for a failed assertion.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Yes. QA Use supports screenshots and downloads of recordings and HAR files. agent-qa records step outcomes and artifacts and exposes them to its run inspector and MCP tools. Evaluate which evidence lets your team explain a real failure, beyond seeing that the browser moved. Sources: [QA Use: test format, execution architecture and CI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/SETUP.md), [agent-qa: recorded evidence](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/recorded-evidence), [agent-qa: coding-agent verification loop](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/coding-agent-workflow). - **Portable definitions and CI.** agent-qa: Yes; QA Use: Yes. QA Use supports cloud-to-local export, synchronization and GitHub Actions. agent-qa runs repository tests through its CLI and can emit JUnit results. The reason to switch is the combined local QA runtime and memory, rather than an assumption that QA Use cannot work with Git or CI. Sources: [QA Use by Desplega: repository and CLI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use), [agent-qa: coding-agent verification loop](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/coding-agent-workflow). ## Where agent-qa takes your QA further ### Keep the execution decisions beside the tests Define targets, models, timeouts and hooks in your workspace, then run the same contract locally or in CI. agent-qa suits teams that need to review how verification runs as carefully as what it checks. ### Retain product knowledge between runs A suite can record observed product behavior in reviewable memory files. agent-qa retrieves that context for later steps while still inspecting the live application, so useful history is available without becoming an unchecked pass condition. ### Bring native mobile into the same workflow When the release spans a website and native apps, agent-qa gives the team one test format and CLI across web, Android and iOS. Keep target-specific journeys and device setup explicit while sharing the authoring and evidence workflow. ## Verdict For recurring QA owned by engineering, agent-qa offers the more complete combination of runtime control, behavioral memory and native mobile coverage. You retain the benefits of file-based tests and agent tooling while bringing the verification system into your own workspace. > Note: This page concerns Desplega's QA Use CLI. A partial rating can mean a different architecture or a capability not established in the cited documentation; it does not claim custom extensions are impossible. No comparative performance benchmark was run. ## Evaluate agent-qa against QA Use 1. Select one existing QA Use flow and preserve its setup, assertions and expected side effects in an agent-qa YAML test. 2. Run both against the same application revision and dataset; record the services, credentials, model settings and artifacts each requires. 3. Introduce a known regression and confirm both tests fail for the intended reason, then inspect the evidence available to a coding agent. 4. Rerun after a harmless UI change and review agent-qa's memory changes. If native mobile matters, evaluate a matching Android or iOS journey separately. [Set up your coding agent](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/agent-quickstart) · [Evaluation guide](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/evaluating-agent-qa) · [Recorded QA evidence](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/recorded-evidence) ## Frequently asked questions ### Which QA Use project does this page compare? This page compares Desplega's QA Use at qa-use.dev, published as @desplega.ai/qa-use from desplega-ai/qa-use. Browser Use also publishes a separate repository named qa-use. That dashboard has its own comparison here; capabilities from one project should not be attributed to the other. ### Does QA Use already support YAML and MCP? Yes. Desplega's QA Use has local YAML tests, assertion actions, MCP and coding-agent skills. agent-qa's stronger case is the combination of a locally controlled QA runner, configurable models, curated behavioral memory and native mobile targets. YAML or MCP alone does not distinguish these products. ### Can I reuse QA Use tests when moving to agent-qa? Use your existing files as the migration specification. Translate action and assertion steps into agent-qa's test schema, configure the target and reproduce setup data. The schemas differ, so this is an explicit conversion, not a drop-in import. Keep the original expected outcomes and compare a passing run with a deliberately broken case. ### Does a local QA Use browser mean execution is independent of Desplega? Its documented local browser workflow still participates in an API-backed architecture and requires Desplega configuration. Inspect the services needed by the command you intend to use. With agent-qa, the engine runs in your environment and connects to the model and device providers you configure; those providers can still be remote. ### When is agent-qa the better QA Use alternative? Choose agent-qa when repeated release checks should retain reviewable product knowledge and run across web and native apps under your team's runtime configuration. QA Use remains a reasonable choice for teams invested in Desplega's browser testing workflow. Evaluate failure detection, evidence and operating dependencies on the same application before migrating. ## Sources - [QA Use by Desplega: repository and CLI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use) - [QA Use: test format, execution architecture and CI](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/SETUP.md) - [QA Use: MCP integration](https://github.com/desplega-ai/qa-use/blob/main/MCP.md) - [Desplega Argus: retained product context](https://www.desplega.ai/argus) - [Browser Use's separate QA Use project](https://github.com/browser-use/qa-use) - [agent-qa: first test and expectations](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/first-test) - [agent-qa: coding-agent verification loop](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/coding-agent-workflow) - [agent-qa: behavioral memory](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/memory) - [agent-qa: model and runtime configuration](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/configuration/global-config) - [agent-qa: native mobile targets](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/mobile-testing) - [agent-qa: local execution MCP](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/mcp) - [agent-qa: recorded evidence](https://vostride.com/docs/agent-qa/guides/recorded-evidence) ## Compare other approaches - [agent-qa vs Browser Use QA Use](https://vostride.com/browser-use-qa-use-alternative.md): Compare Browser Use's QA Use dashboard with agent-qa for repo-owned expectations, local execution, memory, and web and mobile QA. - [agent-qa vs Browser Use](https://vostride.com/browser-use-alternative.md): Choose a complete QA workflow for recurring regressions: repo-owned expectations, scoped application memory, web and native mobile testing. - [agent-qa vs Stagehand](https://vostride.com/stagehand-alternative.md): Compare Stagehand's browser-agent SDK with agent-qa's YAML expectations, behavioral memory, local cache, and native mobile testing. - [agent-qa vs Playwright](https://vostride.com/playwright-alternative.md): Compare agent-qa with Playwright: AI-native natural-language E2E tests with memory versus hand-written browser automation scripts.