You didn’t get into QA to click through flows all day.
Ito handles the repetitive checks.
Your team focuses on strategy and edge cases.
.svg){kind=icon}
60%
QA time spent on repetitive regression.
Under 40%
Post-merge bugs caught manually.
3x
More PRs than QA can manually cover.
You hired experts.
Not clickers.
The regression treadmill
Every release, the same 50 flows: login, checkout, forms. Your team could run them blindfolded. That’s the problem.
Coverage they can’t reach
They know what should be tested. There just aren’t enough hours. So they triage, prioritize, and hope what gets skipped doesn’t break..
Undervalued expertise
They’re treated like test runners instead of test designers. Strategy gets squeezed out by urgency.
You stay in control.
Ito is a tool you direct, not a replacement.
You decide what gets tested and how.
PR opens, Ito runs
Visual results, posted
You review and decide
Focus on what matters
Less repetition.
More insight.
Every PR tested
No more “we’ll test it in staging.” Every change is validated before merge.
Parallel execution
Tests run across browsers and viewports simultaneously. What used to take hours now takes minutes.
Consistent execution
No skipped steps. No “I thought someone tested that.” The same tests run every time.
Ito helps my team ship faster by testing all edge cases right on their PRs. I refuse to go back to manual testing.
I was very impressed with the zero configuration and all the different pathways it was testing. The computer use capability definitely sets it apart from other tools.
Ito caught 3-4 real things that got fixed in the first week. Impressed that backend mocking works autonomously.
Power of manual QA on every PR lets my team ship faster without a quality tradeoff.
What teams ask before using Ito.
Common questions from engineering managers, senior engineers, and QA leads.
Every test session produces a full audit log: which flows were executed with video, screenshots, and logs. This is accessible in the Ito dashboard per PR and also linked directly from the PR comment.
It uses what you give it. With zero config, it mocks external dependencies (payment processors, email, analytics, etc.) that would otherwise cause intermittent failures. We don't want them to get in the way of testing the code changes. You have the ability to add credentials to any services, environment secrets and variables, and any other seed data used in regular testing.
Yes. Ito auto-generates flows from observed behavior, but you can add explicit flows in natural language via the dashboard ("user adds item to cart, applies promo code, checks out as guest") and Ito will translate those into browser-level test execution.
They serve different purposes. Your existing suite is regression coverage for known, stable paths -- high-value to keep. Ito covers the PR-level surface you can't afford to maintain test scripts for: new flows, recently changed behavior, flows introduced by non-technical contributors. The practical pattern most teams land on is keeping Playwright/Cypress for your critical path smoke suite (login, checkout, core CRUD) and letting Ito cover everything else on every PR. Over time, some teams retire their maintained suites entirely as Ito's coverage matures. There's no forced migration.
Ready to ship faster?
Join other QA teams reclaiming their time.