Compare
Manual testing, without the manual part.
Manual testing finds real problems, but writing, running and re-running the same checks every release takes hours your team doesn't have. testdart does that part, so people review results instead of producing them.
Code deploy
Tests running
Shipped, fully tested
Side by side
Same goal, different effort.
| Manual testing | testdart | |
|---|---|---|
| Writing test cases | By hand, from the spec | Generated from requirements by AI Genie |
| Running regression | A person clicks through each release | Runs in a real browser, can trigger on deploy |
| Evidence | Notes and screenshots, if captured | Steps and screenshots recorded on every run |
| Traceability | A spreadsheet, updated by hand | Every test linked to its requirement |
| Why a test failed | Written up by the tester | An analysis of every failure, with the requirement it affects |
What stays human
People do the judgement.
Deciding what to build
Requirements, priorities and release decisions stay with your team.
Reviewing
Review generated tests in copilot mode, and review results in every mode.
Exploring
Freed from repetitive regression, testers spend time on the exploratory work that finds surprises.
FAQ
Common questions.
It takes over the repetitive work of writing, running and maintaining regression checks. People keep the requirements, the reviews and the release decisions.
1 requirement → test cases → a run → a report
Your next release, tested before it ships.
Point testdart at one requirement you care about. You'll have test cases, a real-browser run and a report in a single sitting.