Compare

Milita vs the alternatives.

Most teams arrive here looking for Salesforce regression testing, test automation, or an alternative to maintaining UI scripts. This page is an honest account of how Milita differs, including where one of the alternatives is the better answer. We compare by approach rather than by product, and we don't publish claims about other vendors' behavior we can't verify.

Approaches

Seven ways teams protect a Salesforce process.

Approach	What it's good at	Where it stops	What Milita does instead
Apex unit tests Code you write, run by Salesforce	Proves a method returns the right value. Required for deployment, and genuinely good at what it does.	Can't tell you whether a rep can build a quote and clear approval across your real screens, permissions and managed packages.	Keep them. Milita doesn't replace them.
Scripted UI test automation A browser framework, or a tool built for Salesforce	Drives the real interface, so it exercises what people actually use.	Someone has to write and maintain the scripts, and a script passes when the clicks finish, which is not the same as the business result holding.	Milita works from the process described in plain words, and grades the business result.
Record and replay Capture a session, play it back	Fast to create. No coding.	Replays one identity with the data you recorded, and breaks when the screen moves. The recording is treated as the definition of correct.	Milita performs the process herself, as each required person, with fresh data.
Manual regression testing A person works through a checklist before each release	Catches things nobody thought to automate.	Expensive, slow, and only happens at release time, so silent breakage between releases goes unnoticed.	Milita re-proves after meaningful changes, and stays quiet while everything holds.
Autonomous AI testers An agent that navigates by sight and "self-heals"	Adapts to changing screens without scripts.	A model decides what passed. Non-deterministic, hard to audit, and often grading its own work. Independent reproductions of self-reported navigation benchmarks land far below the headline.	AI understands and proposes; a deterministic run against the real org decides.
Platform-native agent testing Batch synthetic conversations with pipeline hooks	Quick first pass over an agent's answers.	Single-turn, scores semantic similarity rather than the resulting org state, pre-deployment only. It can mark a hallucinated answer as passing.	Milita grades the resulting business state, repeatedly, in the real sandbox, independently.
Doing nothing Find out when a customer complains	Free, until it isn't.	A broken approval or routing rule doesn't raise an error. It surfaces later, as lost revenue or a compliance exposure.	The free plan proves 3 processes forever, which is the cheapest way to stop guessing.

The core difference

Only her own clean run counts.

Every approach above treats something as evidence: passing code, a finished script, a completed replay, a ticked checklist, a model's confidence. Milita only accepts one thing: a run she performed herself, in a clean session, as the required people, with fresh test data, where every required business result held.

What you tell her teaches her. It proves nothing. That's the whole design.

Adjacent, not competing

Deploy with your DevOps tool. Verify with Milita.

Release and DevOps tools push the change. Milita proves it did not break anything. Backup, data and security tools share the buyer and the story. A pipeline can ask Milita for a Proof before a change is promoted. The release gate.

Where she isn't the answer

When not to use Milita.

You need Apex code coverage to deploy.

That's what Apex tests are for. Milita doesn't produce coverage and doesn't try to.

You want load or performance testing.

Milita proves that a business result holds, not how fast it holds or what happens under load.

You want someone to write automation for you as a service.

Milita is software you operate, not a testing consultancy.

Your process has no checkable business result.

If nobody can say what proves it worked, Milita has nothing to grade.

Comparison questions

Asked often.

Is Milita a Salesforce regression testing tool?

That's the category people search in, and it's a fair label. The difference is what she checks. Regression testing usually means re-running scripts to see whether they still pass. Milita re-performs the business process itself and checks the results that matter: that the 25% quote entered Finance Review, that sending it before approval was refused. A run that only finished clicking can't pass.

How is this different from a Salesforce test automation tool?

Those tools are built around authoring and maintaining tests, and they are good at it. Milita is built around a different premise: you describe the work in your own words, as the person who normally does it, and she works out what must hold. There is no test suite to write, and no scripts to repair when a screen moves; when one control changes she asks you about that one control.

Do I still need Apex tests?

Yes. Salesforce requires them to deploy, and they catch a class of defect Milita never will. Apex tests prove your code is right; Milita proves the business process still works across your real screens, permissions and packages.

Can Milita replace our manual regression checklist?

For the processes you give her, she does that work continuously rather than once per release. She won't cover what you haven't described to her, so most teams start with the handful of processes that would hurt most if they broke quietly.

What does she cost compared with a test automation tool?

The free plan keeps 3 Promises forever with no card. Starter is $150 a month. Most scripted tools price per seat or per test, and carry the ongoing cost of whoever maintains the scripts. See Pricing.

Try her on one process.

Free forever for 3 Promises. No card, and nothing to cancel.

Start free Read how it works