ShipVitals vs tests
Tests prove assertions the team wrote. They do not establish that the product promise is complete, that a missing flow was considered, or that visual and client-acceptance evidence exists. ShipVitals runs declared tests and records their output, then applies evidence requirements around them.
ShipVitals vs Lighthouse and Playwright
Lighthouse measures page quality and Playwright executes browser scenarios. ShipVitals can use both as evidence, but it also records payment, authentication, support, privacy, delivery, and independent-review gaps. Without screenshots or flow artifacts, ShipVitals limits UI confidence rather than guessing.
ShipVitals vs security scanners
Dedicated secret, dependency, and static-analysis tools have deeper detection. ShipVitals performs conservative candidate scans and places specialist findings into release context. High-risk products should always retain dedicated security review.
ShipVitals vs code review
Code review examines implementation choices. ShipVitals preserves a decision ledger: commands, findings, missing proof, score caps, and verdict. A reviewer can challenge that ledger without reconstructing the release case from comments and CI tabs.
ShipVitals vs a launch checklist
A checklist is easy to mark complete without durable evidence. ShipVitals stores machine-readable command results and keeps unobserved requirements as not verified. It remains intentionally narrower than project management: it decides release readiness, not roadmap priority.
Use ShipVitals when several tools pass but nobody can answer, with evidence, whether the project is ready for its next destination.