Skip to content

Comparison

Script-Free Monitoring or Playwright Tests? Choose Your Approach.

Checkly is capable synthetic monitoring built on Playwright. You write browser test scripts that simulate user flows — login, checkout, form submission. Sitewatch takes a different approach: paste your URLs, and every resource on your pages is validated automatically. No scripts to write. No tests to maintain. Two tools, two philosophies.

  • Zero scripts — Sitewatch auto-discovers and validates every asset
  • No test maintenance — checks adapt as your pages change
  • Free for 1 site. Flat pricing, no per-check billing.

01Feature comparison

Scripted synthetic monitoring vs script-free website monitoring

Setup approach

Checkly:
Write Playwright test scripts
Sitewatch:
Paste URLs — auto-discovery

Scripting required

Checkly:
Yes — JavaScript or TypeScript
Sitewatch:
No

Test maintenance

Checkly:
Scripts break when UI changes
Sitewatch:
Auto-adapts to page changes

Multi-step user flows

Checkly:
Yes (login, checkout, etc.)
Sitewatch:
No — resource-level validation

Asset validation

Checkly:
Only if you script it
Sitewatch:
Every linked JS, CSS, image, font

Confirms each file is the kind of file it claims to be

Checkly:
Only if you assert it
Sitewatch:
Automatic on every check

Deploy hooks

Checkly:
Yes (CLI + CI)
Sitewatch:
Yes (Vercel, Netlify, GitHub Actions)

Root cause diagnosis

Checkly:
Test failure message
Sitewatch:
Typed incidents with fix playbooks

Stack detection

Checkly:
No
Sitewatch:
23+ platforms auto-detected

Status pages

Checkly:
Yes
Sitewatch:
Branded + password-protected

Monitoring as Code

Checkly:
Yes (Terraform, Pulumi)
Sitewatch:
No — UI-driven

API monitoring

Checkly:
Yes (API checks)
Sitewatch:
Yes

Protection coverage scoring

Checkly:
No
Sitewatch:
Yes — names the pages you are not monitoring

Content / keyword loss detection

Checkly:
Only if you script it
Sitewatch:
Yes — regression-only, up to 5 phrases per page

Robots.txt regression detection

Checkly:
No
Sitewatch:
Yes — catches an accidental Disallow: /

DNS (MX/CNAME) change detection

Checkly:
No
Sitewatch:
Yes — unique to Sitewatch

Sitemap URL health

Checkly:
No
Sitewatch:
Yes — weekly broken-URL audit

Target audience

Checkly:
Developers who write tests
Sitewatch:
Agencies and dev teams

Starting price

Checkly:
~$30/mo (scales with checks)
Sitewatch:
Free (1 site) / $19/mo Pro ($190/yr annual)

02The scripting blind spot

Failures you'd have to explicitly script for — or miss entirely

New asset not covered by tests

Critical

Your team adds a new script dependency. Nobody updates the Playwright tests. The script 404s after the next deploy. Your tests pass because they never checked it.

Stylesheet arrives as the wrong kind of file

Critical

A CDN misconfiguration serves your stylesheet as text/html. Browsers block it. Unless someone wrote an assertion for that exact stylesheet, this goes undetected.

Image CDN failure

Moderate

Your image optimization service fails. Hero images and product photos disappear. Playwright tests that don't check every image resource won't catch it.

Test maintenance burden

Moderate

A design change moves a button. A form field gets renamed. Your test fails — not because the site is broken, but because the test is stale. Maintenance overhead grows with every test.

03Two shapes of coverage

A script checks what you told it. A page check reads what is there.

Scripted coverage is exactly as wide as the scripts.

Checkly verifies the journeys you described — and does it properly. The gap opens when the page gains something nobody wrote a step for. A widget added three sprints ago is not in any test, so when it breaks every check still passes.

$ checkly run --all
login.spec.ts passed
checkout.spec.ts passed
widget.2a7f.js no test covers this file
✕ 12/12 passing · page degraded

Reading the page needs nobody to remember.

Sitewatch does not know or care what your journeys are. It opens the page, finds everything it depends on, and checks each one — including whatever was added last week without a test.

$ sitewatch check acme-shop.com
scripts 11/12 loaded
widget.2a7f.js not found
styles · images · endpoints all verified
✓ incident opened · no script written

04An honest answer

Which should you actually choose?

Checkly is a genuinely capable tool and it reaches places we deliberately do not. This is not a case of one being better.

Multi-step user flows — login, search, checkout Checkly
Verifying a transaction completes end to end Checkly
Developers who want monitoring as code, in version control Checkly
Assertions on API responses in a test suite Checkly
Coverage without writing or maintaining any scripts SitewatchEvery resource checked, including ones nobody wrote a test for SitewatchMonitoring dozens of client sites without a test suite each SitewatchA non-developer to be able to read the alert SitewatchMarketing sites and landing pages watched cheaply SitewatchSafe frontend deployments Either

Sitewatch probably isn't for you if…

  • You need to verify a multi-step journey completes — that is scripted synthetic monitoring, and Checkly is the right tool.
  • You have developers who are happy to write and maintain Playwright scripts, and that coverage is what you are buying.
  • You want your monitoring defined as code and reviewed in pull requests.
  • Your critical paths are API contracts rather than rendered pages.

Live monitoring

Sitewatch is watching these sites right now

Real sites we check every few minutes for the failures uptime tools miss — the pages that stay “up” while something quietly breaks.

  • netlify.com
  • coachplan.dk
  • arnoldandassociate.com
  • solklar.dk
  • kostpartneren.dk
  • wordpress-guiden.dk
  • whatcanidowiththismajor.com
  • jumpshare.com
  • unlimitedperformance.dk
  • maravillabali.com
  • dynalead.net
  • jakobshof-lehr.de
  • trestlescan.com
  • directlifly.com

Website monitoring without the scripting overhead

Free plan. 1 site. No Playwright required.

05Common misconceptions

What the comparison gets wrong.

No

Myth — Sitewatch is a cheaper Checkly.

Reality — It is a different approach, not a discount version. Checkly verifies journeys you describe; Sitewatch verifies everything the page actually loads. Neither is a subset of the other.

No

Myth — Scripted tests already cover the page.

Reality — They cover what the script looks at. The classic failure is a resource added after the tests were written — it breaks, and every test still passes.

No

Myth — You should only run one of them.

Reality — The strongest setup is often both: Checkly proves checkout completes, Sitewatch catches the missing file that makes the checkout page load without a payment form.

Yes

Myth — Checkly is better at flows.

Reality — Yes. If what you need is a scripted multi-step journey, we do not do that, and we are not going to pretend a resource check is the same thing.

Comparison FAQ