QA Wolf vs MuukTest: Comparing QAaaS models

The engineering leader considering all their options for a sustainable, cost-effective solution to test automation may look at QA as a service (QAaaS) solutions like QA Wolf and MuukTest and conclude that they are similar, if not identical, options. Both companies purport to offer rapid test creation for a speedy time to value, fully managed infrastructure for test execution, and continuous maintenance and support . 

But the similarities between QA Wolf and MuukTest are only skin deep. A careful read reveals an extremely restrictive service package that ultimately drives up the cost of test coverage—both in terms of the contract value and in slower QA cycles that cost developers time and productivity. 

Limits on parallelization, test maintenance, and the amount of coverage that you can get per dollar may be fine for applications in “maintenance mode,” where changes are rare and the demand for automated regression testing is small. However, teams with significant roadmaps and frequent releases will find the longer execution cycles, frequently unavailable tests, and expensive test coverage extremely frustrating. 

 Who are QA Wolf and MuukTest for?

We’ll look at four key differences between QA Wolf and MuukTest, and discuss how they drastically affect outcomes for dev teams. 

1. The pricing model
2. The definition of a test
3. Parallel test execution
4. Failure investigation and test maintenance 

Pricing: All-inclusive QA Wolf pricing vs. a la carte MuukTest pricing

QA Wolf is a technology-enabled service that manages every aspect of end-to-end regression testing from test creation, through execution, bug reporting, and test maintenance, for a flat per-test fee. Our business model is to deliver test coverage, with everything that includes: unlimited test runs, unlimited 24-hour test maintenance, unlimited failure investigation and human review of bugs and flakes. 

By bundling all of this in a flat fee per test, we reduce the number of people on your side who need to be focused on non-value-adding work like investigating failures and updating test scripts. We return that time to your QA engineers, to analyze gaps in coverage and non-functional testing. 

MuukTest, in contrast, puts hard limits on how many tests you can run, how much time they’ll support your test suite, and how many new tests they’ll build. Going over these limits incurs additional fees, or have you shift the additional work onto developers or other in-house resources. 

Here’s a comparison of QA Wolf’s and MuukTest’s per-test pricing model

Included in a test under management

Tests: QA Wolf’s assertions vs MuukTest’s lines of code

When a QA provider charges for tests under management, the natural question is “how do you define a test?”

QA Wolf uses the Arrange, Act, Assert (AAA) framework, in which a test asserts that a user action had the desired effect given the arranged state of the UI. In simpler terms, a test checks that a user flow still works as intended after new code is released. 

MuukTest defines a test as 15 unique steps or lines of code. This method simplifies the calculation of test costs. However, the per-step pricing structure means that longer tests eat up the budget faster. This pricing model poses challenges for projects that require ongoing testing of new or complex features. If comprehensive coverage becomes disproportionately expensive, some organizations might opt to compromise coverage. This could affect the overall quality assurance process, where vital aspects of the application might receive less testing to conserve budget.

For apps that are not going to be updated (or updated infrequently) this approach may help control costs because the test budget can be dedicated to critical features, or features with external dependencies. 

But for apps that are frequently changing, skimping on essential updates or non-critical feature testing to save money leaves gaps in test coverage. These coverage gaps can lead to bugs and vulnerabilities in your application. When tests do not cover parts of the software, issues in those areas may not be discovered until after the software has been deployed. This potential risk should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of MuukTest's service model.

QA Wolf guarantees that the dollars spent go to meaningful tests, regardless of how complex the test case may be. 

Parallel execution: QA Wolf’s full concurrency vs MuukTest’s sharding strategy

Parallel execution is one of the most important features of a QA solution. To practice continuous delivery and release multiple times a day—or even multiple times a week—developers need to complete a full regression suite in a matter of minutes. This is only possible with full concurrency. 

QA Wolf provides exactly that. Our investment in parallel testing infrastructure means that test suites finish in under 5 minutes for most customers, no matter how many tests they’re running. This also improves the productivity of developers, who no longer need to babysit the builds.

According to MuukTest’s website, their base package provides for three parallel tests. If we assume that a test takes five minutes to run, a suite of 200 tests would take more than five hours (not including flakes that need to re-run). 

This is fine if the application is “finished” and you simply want to validate it from time to time, but it is a major bottleneck if you want to innovate and update. For an additional fee, MuukTest will increase the concurrency limit to “dozens” of parallel runs—how many dozens is not specified.

Failure investigation and test maintenance: QA Wolf’s fully managed service vs. MuukTest’s self-managed service

It’s a law of nature that E2E tests will fail. When that happens, someone must determine the cause and rectify the issue. If the test failure is a bug, someone needs to write a bug report. If the test is broken, someone needs to fix it. 

Investigating failures and maintaining tests for applications with active roadmaps is by far the most time-consuming part of E2E testing, and capacity limits are the main reason that most companies fail to reach their coverage goals. 

QA Wolf takes a simple approach to investigation and maintenance: We’re responsible for everything and include that in the price. We do it this way because it provides transparent, predictable costs and clearly defined responsibilities. Our customers appreciate the transparency and lack of surprise expenses. 

Since we eat the maintenance costs, developing high-quality, reliable tests from the start is in our best interest. This prevents the need for frequent fixes and reduces the chance of test failures, lowering our long-term maintenance expenses. This approach aligns our goals with our customers’, providing dependable tests that accurately assess their software’s functionality without constant updates.

MuukTest’s approach is ambiguous. Their website indicates they provide “6 hours per month” in their base plan. We assume this is not simply for technical troubleshooting, and that it does include test maintenance that their AI can’t handle. As long as the application isn’t changing, this is probably sufficient, but for apps under active development, the maintenance burden is going to fall onto developers or QA engineers—an additional cost that you will need to absorb. 

Choosing the right test automation partner

Now, let’s break it down a bit:

QA Wolf is designed for teams that are pushing the envelope and need to keep pace with rapid development cycles. If you’re working on a complex product that has frequent updates or major releases, you know that bugs and downtime are expensive. That’s where our all-inclusive service comes into play. We handle everything from test creation to maintenance, and we make sure that your tests are not just up and running, but are also reliable and fast. This way, your developers can focus on what they do best—innovating.

MuukTest, on the other hand, might be the right fit if your project doesn’t change much over time. Think of smaller-scale products that need occasional check-ups rather than constant care. Their model lets you pick and choose what services you need and pay accordingly, which can keep costs down if your demand for testing is low. However, this means that if your needs suddenly increase, so will your costs, and the responsibility to manage and integrate these services falls on your team.

MuukTest leaves a lot unsaid on its public website.  If you meet with them, make sure you understand the complete offering with these questions.  Select the items relevant to your project.

• Are you able to test Electron, Canvas API, IoT, Salesforce, and generative AI apps?
• Are you able to test functionality such as drag and drop, SMS, MFA, Chrome extensions, email content validation, and PDF content validation?  
• Can you do performance testing, accessibility testing, and visual regression testing?
• Do you support PR testing for those practicing continuous delivery?
• Can you run all our tests in parallel, and if so, what is the cost?
• Can you maintain all of our tests for us? If so, how much would it cost?
• Can you guarantee that all our tests will pass? On average, how often do tests fail and for what reasons?
• Can you give us 15-minute QA cycles 80% of the time?
• Do you use a specific framework or pattern to define a test?
• How much will it cost to run 200 tests in parallel? 2,000 tests in parallel?
• What tactical steps does triage/investigation include?
• How do you benchmark your AI? How do you ensure it doesn't hallucinate or provide an inaccurate suggestion?

QA Wolf and MuukTest cater to fundamentally different application requirements. At QA Wolf, we provide a comprehensive, worry-free package that aligns with teams who need their testing to be as dynamic and forward-thinking as their development. This includes not only executing tests but also managing the entire testing lifecycle, all bundled into a predictable cost.

MuukTest’s approach might suit you if your application is stable, with infrequent updates, where you can plan your testing needs well in advance. However, for those in the trenches of rapid development, managing the piecemeal approach can become a challenge, potentially leading to unexpected delays and costs.

Understanding these differences and your own team’s needs is key to choosing the right partner for your test automation strategy.