Softwr

Testing · head to head

Applitools vs Qase

Applitools logo

Applitools

Testing

AI-based visual regression testing, priced on component and page checkpoint volume

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Qase logo

Qase

Testing

Test case management with an API first design and a free tier for small teams

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Qase has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Applitools the entry tier alone costs 667 US dollars a month on annual billing, a genuinely high floor compared to Percy's tiers or a plain screenshot-diffing open source approach.; Qase requirements traceability is shallower than the enterprise incumbents, so proving coverage against a numbered specification takes manual field discipline rather than a built in link.
  • They diverge on capability: Applitools covers Visual AI comparison, Qase covers Case repository.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Applitools and Qase actually diverge.

Attributes where Applitools and Qase differ
AttributeApplitoolsQase
Starting priceOn requestFree
Pricing modelPer month by checkpoint volumePer user per month
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (Testing).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Applitools

  • Visual AI comparison
  • Storybook component testing
  • Figma design comparison
  • Cross-browser and device visual testing
  • Accessibility testing
  • NLP-based test authoring

Only in Qase

  • Case repository
  • Test runs and plans
  • Automation reporters
  • Defect linking
  • Public API
  • Requirement and review workflow

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Applitools

  • A team that abandoned pixel-diffing visual regression testing because of false-positive fatigue and wants a lower-noise alternativenot Qase
  • A design system team wanting component-level visual testing against Storybook rather than only full-page checksnot Qase
  • An organisation wanting automated verification that shipped UI matches its Figma source designnot Qase
  • A team wanting NLP-based visual test authoring to reduce the coding overhead of writing visual test scripts, available at Professional tiernot Qase

Qase

  • A QA lead introducing formal test management with no budget approval yetnot Applitools
  • Teams that want manual and automated results in one run history rather than two systemsnot Applitools
  • Organisations replacing TestRail on cost after a per seat renewal increasenot Applitools
  • Small teams needing exportable evidence of what was tested for a customer or auditornot Applitools

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Applitools

  • The entry tier alone costs 667 US dollars a month on annual billing, a genuinely high floor compared to Percy's tiers or a plain screenshot-diffing open source approach.
  • Professional and Enterprise tiers, which hold the more advanced authoring and unlimited execution features, are quote-only, removing pricing transparency exactly where a large buyer most needs it.
  • Visual AI still occasionally flags false positives on genuinely novel layouts or animation-heavy interfaces, so a baseline review process is still needed, not eliminated.
  • Checkpoint-based pricing means cost is directly tied to test suite size and coverage breadth, so expanding visual test coverage has a direct, compounding cost impact unlike time-based or seat-based pricing models.
  • Teams migrating from a simpler pixel-diffing tool face real setup and baseline migration work to establish Applitools baselines correctly across a large existing UI.

Qase

  • Requirements traceability is shallower than the enterprise incumbents, so proving coverage against a numbered specification takes manual field discipline rather than a built in link.
  • It is a small vendor relative to Atlassian and Idera, and test management systems accumulate years of history, so continuity risk deserves weighing against the price saving.
  • The Jira integration is a link between two products rather than an application inside Jira, so teams that live entirely in Jira will still context switch, which is exactly what Zephyr avoids.
  • Reporting is adequate for a team and thin for a programme; consolidated quality metrics across many projects usually end up rebuilt in a BI tool.
  • Automation reporters cover the common runners well but anything unusual falls to the API, meaning someone has to build and maintain that integration.

Pricing, plan by plan

Applitools

On request
  • Starter$667/month
    • Billed annually
    • 100,000 component checkpoints or 1,000 page checkpoints
    • Visual AI, Storybook and Figma integration, accessibility testing
  • Professional$undefined/month
    • Custom quote, starting around 150 active pages or 1,500 components
    • Unlimited executions, NLP-based test authoring
    • Priority support with a dedicated Slack channel
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Custom quote, starting around 350 active pages or 1,500 components
    • SSO and dedicated or private cloud
    • Custom SLAs and a weekly account manager

Qase

Free
  • Free$undefined/month
    • Small user limit with core case management and runs
    • Enough for a two or three person team to work in permanently
  • Paid tiers$undefined/month
    • Published per user monthly pricing rising with integrations, custom fields and reporting depth
    • Cheaper per seat than the established test management incumbents at comparable tiers

Which should you pick?

Choose Applitools if

  • You need visual ai comparison.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want storybook component testing.
Applitools review

Choose Qase if

  • You need case repository.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You also want test runs and plans.
Qase review

Questions people ask

Is Applitools or Qase better?
Neither clearly leads. Applitools starts at On request and Qase at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Applitools or Qase?
Qase has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for Applitools and Free for Qase.
Does Applitools or Qase run on more platforms?
Applitools runs on Web, iOS, Android. Qase runs on Web.
Can I use Qase for free?
Yes. Qase has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Applitools starts at On request.
What is Applitools best used for?
Applitools is most often used for a team that abandoned pixel-diffing visual regression testing because of false-positive fatigue and wants a lower-noise alternative, a design system team wanting component-level visual testing against storybook rather than only full-page checks, an organisation wanting automated verification that shipped ui matches its figma source design, a team wanting nlp-based visual test authoring to reduce the coding overhead of writing visual test scripts, available at professional tier. Of those, a team that abandoned pixel-diffing visual regression testing because of false-positive fatigue and wants a lower-noise alternative and a design system team wanting component-level visual testing against storybook rather than only full-page checks are not what Qase is typically brought in for.
What can Applitools do that Qase cannot?
Applitools covers Visual AI comparison, Storybook component testing, Figma design comparison, Cross-browser and device visual testing. Qase covers Case repository, Test runs and plans, Automation reporters, Defect linking.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Applitools: How is Applitools priced?

By checkpoint volume, component or page-level screenshot comparisons, with the entry Starter tier at 667 US dollars a month for 100,000 component or 1,000 page checkpoints.

Qase: Can the free tier be used indefinitely?

Yes, within its user limit. It is a genuine free tier rather than a trial.

Applitools: How is it different from Percy?

Applitools uses an AI-based perceptual comparison model designed to reduce false positives from rendering noise; Percy is generally pixel-diffing based and lower cost per screenshot.

Qase: Does it run tests?

No. It records what was run and what happened. Execution stays with your framework or your testers.

Applitools: Does it test individual components or only full pages?

Both; Storybook integration allows component-level visual testing in addition to full-page checks.

Qase: How hard is migrating from TestRail?

Case import is straightforward; run history and custom field mappings are the part that takes time.

Share

Related pages

More on Applitools

More on Qase

Keep looking

Other head to heads