Comparison
Regresco vs Ghost Inspector
Two no-code browser-testing tools, two different bets on how a non-engineer should author tests. Here's where they actually overlap and where they don't.
The short version
Ghost Inspector if your authors want to record a flow by clicking through it. Regresco if you want AI to draft the first version and a platform that classifies your failures.
Both are aimed at teams without dedicated QA engineers. The difference is what "no-code" means in practice.
Why we built this in the first place
Ghost Inspector launched in 2014. It's been the default no-code answer for a long time and the Chrome extension recorder genuinely works. The pattern we kept seeing was that recording gets you to a working test fast, but maintenance still falls on the same handful of people, and when a selector breaks the recorder doesn't tell you whether the test caught a real regression, broke because the page changed, or flaked.
Regresco picks up at that maintenance step. AI proposes the flow, the runtime healer retries with alternative selectors when one breaks, and the failure classifier tells you which red runs actually need triage. We made a different trade than recording-first: less smooth authoring, more help after the test exists.
The side-by-side
Only the things that actually matter when a small team is picking a tool:
| Regresco | Ghost Inspector | |
|---|---|---|
| No-code flow definition | ||
| Chrome extension recorder | ||
| AI flow generation from site crawl | ||
| Natural-language flow creation | ||
| Import existing Playwright .spec.ts | ||
| Managed cloud runners | ||
| Cross-browser (Chromium + Firefox) | ||
| Visual / screenshot comparison | ||
| Baseline comparison across runs | partial | |
| Failure classification (regression / broken / flaky) | ||
| Auto-heal broken selectors at runtime | ||
| Per-step screenshots & traces | ||
| Scheduled runs (daily/weekly) | ||
| Continuous monitoring (every-N-minutes) | ||
| CI/CD webhook trigger | ||
| Email notifications on completion | ||
| Permanent free tier |
"Partial" means the feature exists but not as a structured run-vs-baseline diff with status tags (NEW FAILURE / FIXED / STILL FAILING).
What you'll pay
Regresco
Flat monthly price. Compute included.
- Free: $0 for 5 runs a month, 1 project
- Pro: $49/month for 200 runs, 20 projects
- Business: $149/month for 1000 runs, 100 projects, priority queue
Every feature works on every tier. Only the limits and queue priority change.
Ghost Inspector
Per-check pricing tiers.
- Free trial (time-limited)
- Paid plans scale by monthly check count and concurrency
- Higher tiers for larger teams and dedicated runners
Check ghostinspector.com/pricing for current per-tier numbers.
When Ghost Inspector is the right call
Pick Ghost Inspector if any of these describe you:
- Your authors strongly prefer to record-and-play rather than describe flows in a UI or text
- You need cross-browser coverage on Firefox, not just Chromium
- Visual / screenshot comparison is a non-negotiable part of your QA process
- You're using the same tool for continuous production monitoring (every few minutes)
- You're already paying for it, the suite works, and the migration cost outweighs the upgrade in features
When Regresco is the right call
Pick Regresco if any of these describe you:
- You want AI to draft the first version of your flows from a crawl, not start from a blank recorder
- You're tired of red-run dashboards that don't tell you whether a failure is a real regression or a broken locator
- You'd benefit from runtime auto-heal so a single brittle selector doesn't tank a flow you cared about
- Your scope is pre-release regression on staging, not always-on production monitoring
- You've already written some Playwright tests and want them imported, not rewritten in a new format
- Flat pricing with a permanent free tier matters for your budget approval cycle
Where we fall short
Ghost Inspector has had a decade to refine this. There are real reasons to pick them:
No recorder.
The Chrome extension recorder is genuinely the smoothest authoring path for browser tests that exists. If your authors are PMs, support engineers, or anyone who'd rather click through a flow than describe it, that workflow is irreplaceable. We don't have one.
Chromium only.
Regresco runs tests against Chromium. Ghost Inspector runs Chromium and Firefox. If your customers hit you on multiple browsers and you've been bitten by Firefox-only regressions, that gap matters.
No visual / screenshot comparison.
We don't ship pixel diffs. The reasoning is honest: Playwright executes faster than your CSS animations and reveal triggers, and the false-positive rate makes pixel diffs noise more than signal in our testing. If your team uses visual regression as a primary signal, Ghost Inspector covers that and we don't.
Track record.
Ghost Inspector has been in market since 2014 with thousands of paying customers. We're new. If a long track record in QA tooling is part of your buying criteria, that's a fair point against us today.
Questions we get a lot
Is Regresco a Ghost Inspector alternative?
For most teams looking at Ghost Inspector, yes. Both target non-engineers who want browser tests without code. The mechanics are different. Ghost Inspector authors tests by recording your clicks in a Chrome extension. Regresco authors them in a UI, by AI-crawling your site, or by importing a Playwright .spec.ts. If recording is non-negotiable for your authors, Ghost Inspector still wins. If you want AI to draft the first version of a flow, that's where we come in.
Can I record tests in Regresco the way I do in Ghost Inspector?
No. We don't ship a Chrome extension recorder. Flows in Regresco are built three ways: a UI form, AI generation from a crawl of your site, or Playwright import. Recording is genuinely the smoothest authoring UX that exists for browser tests, and Ghost Inspector has been refining theirs for a decade. We made a different bet: AI drafts the flow, you tweak the parts that matter, the platform classifies what fails.
What does Regresco do that Ghost Inspector doesn't?
AI flow generation from a site crawl, failure classification (regression vs broken locator vs flaky from your run history), runtime auto-heal for broken selectors, baseline comparison against the previous run, and Playwright .spec.ts import. Ghost Inspector covers some of this but the AI angle and the typed failure classification are ours.
What does Ghost Inspector do better than Regresco?
Three things. The Chrome extension recorder is the cleanest no-code authoring tool we've used in the category. They run tests on Firefox in addition to Chromium, so cross-browser coverage is real. And visual / screenshot comparison is a first-class feature there, where we explicitly don't ship pixel diffs (Playwright clicks faster than render, the false-positive rate makes them noise more than signal in our experience).
What's the pricing difference?
Regresco is flat: $0 free, $49/month Pro, $149/month Business, with run counts you can predict. Ghost Inspector pricing scales with check counts and starts higher than our Pro tier. Their free trial is time-boxed; our free tier is permanent (5 runs/month, 1 project). Check ghostinspector.com/pricing for current numbers since both vendors update them.
We use Ghost Inspector for monitoring. Is Regresco a monitor?
Not really. Regresco is positioned as pre-release regression rather than continuous monitoring. We support scheduled runs (daily/weekly with day and time picker) and that covers nightly regression sweeps fine. If you're running checks every 5 minutes against production, Ghost Inspector is the more natural fit. Many teams run both: Ghost Inspector or Checkly for prod monitoring, Regresco for staging-side regression before each release.
Other comparisons
- Regresco vs Cypress — code-first framework vs managed regression service
- Regresco vs Playwright Cloud — managed Playwright execution vs managed regression suite
- Regresco vs Checkly — pre-release regression vs continuous monitoring
Try it on your staging URL
Free plan is 5 runs a month. No credit card. Point it at your staging URL and you'll see a regression pass in under 10 minutes. If it fits your team, upgrade. If it doesn't, no hard feelings.