Testlio Pricing
Plans, Consumption Fund & Comparisons in 2026
Testlio doesn't publish dollar amounts. We break down the two-part model — LeoCore platform fee plus annual consumption fund — the three Contact-sales packages, and how Guardian's published per-flow rate compares.
Data sources: Testlio does not publish dollar pricing. Package names, user bands, and feature lists below are taken from Testlio's public packaging (Essential / Advanced / Enterprise) as of August 2026. We do not invent list prices. Verify current commercial terms directly with Testlio sales.
Testlio Packages
Every package is Contact sales. The commercial structure is the same at every tier: a LeoCore platform subscription plus an annual consumption fund that pays for tester time and specialty work.
~10 users · LeoMatch AI tester matching
~50 users · integrations, API/MCP, QBRs
Senior EM · autonomous AI agents · SSO · AI opt-out (HIPAA/GDPR)
The consumption-fund problem for CI/CD
A pre-funded consumption pool is a reasonable way to buy global human testing hours. It is a poor way to buy regression that should run on every pull request. The more seriously you adopt CI, the faster the fund draws down. Guardian's flat rate includes unlimited CI/CD runs — no allocation, no fund, no overages.
What Each Package Actually Buys
| Capability | Essential | Advanced | Enterprise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | Contact sales | Contact sales | Contact sales |
| Users (approx.) | ~10 | ~50 | Unlimited |
| Coverage | Core functional / exploratory | Specialty: payments, AI, localization | Bespoke + autonomous AI agents |
| Platforms | Web + mobile | Web + mobile + specialty | Web + mobile + custom recruiting |
| Matching | LeoMatch AI | LeoMatch + integrations / API / MCP | Bespoke recruiting + senior EM |
| Compliance extras | ISO/IEC 27001 program | QBRs + deeper integrations | SSO · AI opt-out for HIPAA/GDPR |
The Export Friction (Not Full Lock-In)
Standard frameworks, manual retrieval — no one-click portal
Unlike Rainforest QA's proprietary editor, Testlio may use standard frameworks. That is better than zero export. It is still not productized ownership: there is no self-service one-click Playwright download, so leaving means a manual retrieval process. If you treat the suite as a CI asset you might run independently next year, that friction is the lock-in.
Guardian ships pure Playwright with one-click export. You own every line — run it anywhere, forever.
Testlio vs. Guardian
| Factor | Testlio | QA Guardian |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | Contact sales (unpublished) | $3,500/mo (published) |
| Pricing model | Platform fee + annual consumption fund | Flat rate, unlimited runs |
| Pricing published | No — quote required | Yes — full schedule public |
| What you buy | Global human testing network | Productized Playwright CI coverage |
| Code ownership | Manual retrieval; no one-click portal | Yes — one-click pure Playwright export |
| CI/CD runs | Draws down the consumption fund | Unlimited included |
| Real-device / payments / i18n | Category-leading | Not the product — web Playwright |
| Time to coverage | ~15 days to start (vendor claim) | Critical flows in <30 days |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | Yes | SOC 2 Type II aligned + HIPAA BAA |
Common Questions About Testlio Pricing
Published rates. Unlimited runs. One-click Playwright you own.
No consumption fund. No Contact-sales gate. Guardian's flow-based model is built for teams with serious CI/CD pipelines.
QA Guardian: one-click export of pure Playwright TypeScript — you own every line. No proprietary runtime. No lock-in, ever.
QA Guardian
See your critical flows live in CI within 30 days.
Talk to the engineers who'll build your tests — no sales pitch.
Book a Demo