BrokenPage vs Checkly: Visual Monitoring Without the Code

Who Each Tool Is Built For

Checkly is built for engineering teams that write and maintain synthetic monitoring scripts. If your team already writes Playwright tests, Checkly is a natural fit.

BrokenPage is built for founders, CTOs, and DevOps leads who want visual monitoring without writing or maintaining test code.

Feature Comparison

When Checkly Is the Better Choice

• You need multi-step transaction monitoring (login flows, checkout processes).
• Your team already has Playwright tests you want to extend to production.
• You need API monitoring alongside browser checks.
• You want monitoring-as-code defined in Git.

When BrokenPage Is the Better Choice

• You want visual monitoring without writing code.
• You do not have dedicated engineering time for monitoring scripts.
• You need visual monitoring at a lower price ($29/mo vs $64/mo).
• You want a non-technical team member to set up monitoring.
• You just need to know if your page looks broken.

The Code Question

This is the real deciding factor. Checkly's visual regression feature uses Playwright's toHaveScreenshot() method. A basic check looks like this:

const { expect, test } = require('@playwright/test');

test('homepage visual check', async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto('https://yoursite.com');
  await expect(page).toHaveScreenshot({
    maxDiffPixelRatio: 0.01,
  });
});

This is simple for a single page. But for 10 pages, 50 pages, or pages with dynamic content that needs masking, you are writing and maintaining a test suite. When your UI changes, your scripts need updating.

BrokenPage does the same visual comparison without the script. The trade-off: BrokenPage is simpler but less customizable. Checkly is more powerful but requires engineering investment.

Pricing Comparison

The key pricing difference: Checkly gates visual regression behind the Team plan ($64/month). BrokenPage includes it from the free tier.