Pie tests every change like a real user, catches what breaks, and opens the fix before it ever reaches your users.
handleClick() sets loading to true but never resets it — button stays disabled after the first click.You find out from a customer, or a screenshot in the exec channel. Either way, you're the one explaining why.
It runs quietly in the background, using your product the way your customers do, reaching the coverage manual can't staff and scripts can't maintain.
You wake up to fix PRs, not bug reports.
Like a Roomba for your product quality.
"Pie has helped us elevate our level of confidence, and the speed at which we can release new products."
"After evaluating multiple vendors, Pie was the only solution that consistently executed our most complex end-to-end workflows with reliability across builds. It has effectively replaced our manual regression efforts, enabling us to maintain our release velocity with significantly greater efficiency and confidence."
Maps your real user flows. No test scripts to write.
Reads every PR and exercises it the way your users will.
Functional and usability bugs. Not pass/fail theater.
Opens a PR with the fix, ready to review. Not more homework.
If scripts were sufficient, this problem would be solved by now. Instead, AI is cranking out more scripts than ever and quality is still dropping.
Pie finds the button by looking at the screen, like a user does. Redesign the UI and coverage keeps working.
Status code 200 is not a working product. Pie catches the broken experience behind the passing check.
Every finding is reproduced before it reaches you. Three real bugs, not three hundred maybes.
Not competitors. Different layers of the same problem, and where each one runs out.
Deterministic checks on critical paths, owned by engineers who want that control.
Every UI change is selector churn. A green run only means the selectors resolved. Checkout can render $0.00 and still pass.
Runs alongside your suite, tests like a user, and there's nothing to maintain. Full comparison →
Catching real issues in the code itself, on every PR. We recommend running one.
A clean diff can still break the running product. Rendering, state, and flow bugs only exist at runtime, where a code reader can't see them.
They read your code. Pie uses your product. The two layers catch different bugs, and teams run both.
Quick sanity checks while you build. Genuinely useful at development time.
Not repeatable, not independent, and no memory of your product across releases. Verification can't come from the thing being verified.
The independent check with eyes: it runs the real UI on every push, and remembers how your product is supposed to behave.
Exploratory testing sprints and compliance sign-off still benefit from a human team.
Months to ramp, coverage that decays as the product moves, and every release waiting on someone else's schedule.
Coverage from day one that never goes stale. Pie tests every change the moment it ships, and a human reviews only what needs a human.
If you've got a fully-staffed quality team that loves maintaining Playwright, you probably don't need us.
Did we miss a question?
Email us directly →
Point us at your app. We'll show you the bugs before your users do.
See what Pie finds in your app →