AuguroAuguro vs Checkly
The closest thing to a real competitor, and the comparison we take most seriously. The difference is who writes the check.
Where Checkly is the better answer
Checkly is genuinely excellent, and the comparison we take most seriously. Real Playwright, monitoring as code, and a test can express anything you can write. If a flow needs branching, generated data, or an assertion no form can describe, use Checkly.
Where it leaves you exposed
You write and maintain that Playwright. Every check is a small codebase, and small codebases decay. In practice most teams never write the second one.
Side by side
| Checkly | Auguro | |
|---|---|---|
| Real browser | Yes | Yes |
| Multi-step flows and logins | Yes | Yes |
| Written as code you maintain | Yes | No, as validated steps |
| Monitoring as code | Yes | No |
| Checks you have to write yourself | All of them | None |
| Time to first useful check | An afternoon | A URL |
| Per-seat charges | Yes | Never |
Which should you choose
Both tools walk through a login or a checkout; Checkly does it in Playwright you write, and Auguro does it as a list of validated steps you assemble. Checkly is the better product where a flow needs more than a list can say. Auguro is the better product for the checks that would otherwise never be written. Many teams have room for both.
One monitor free, permanently. No card required, and nothing to script.