Quality assurance is an inseparable part of nowadays’ software development cycle. The main point of it is to recognize errors and defects, increase the scalability and quality of the end product and guarantee its stable operation. At the moment IT experts apply several working approaches to the testing part of the development: manual and automated testing. Both of these ways have their pros and cons, and the choice basically depends on the project’s requirements, purpose, and objectives for the certain approach.
Speed and Efficiency: Automated testing can be used for processing a big number of cases, saving the effort of human testers and significantly saving time.
The most common arguments in favor of automated QA include its time-saving capability of processing multiple cases at once, which makes human testers be free to work on more important issues, saving the effort for other tasks. Automation gives an opportunity to create tests’ examples and then perform them automatically, which shortens the whole duration of a process. In addition, automated tests show themselves to be much faster in comparison with the manual ones, especially in conditions with the burning deadlines.
With manual testing, the tester needs to go through each step by hand, spending much more time on the process, moreover, often repeating it over and over again. He must monitor each step and record the outcome of the tests. Alternatively, automated testing prevents the tester from many repetitive tasks. In addition, automated tests can be performed simultaneously on many different platforms, giving the broader spectrum for application.
The efficiency of automated testing also depends on the reliability of the previous outcomes and the number of recognized errors to a number of time being in use. Automated tests are usually performed with the similar initial conditions and environments, which decreases the chance of a human factor to mess up the results, as it is a big issue in the industry at the moment. What’s more, automated tests can be utilized for extended periods without fatigue or errors, allowing specialists to get a more detailed image of the quality assurance process and the parts which need to be re-coded or retested.
Consistency: Automated tests follow predefined algorithms precisely, ensuring consistency, whereas human testers may introduce variations.
The difference between manual and automation testing lies in the steps which are either being repeated quickly or slowly, examined with or without human participation, following the previously set template or varied according to a certain need. Human testers, on one hand, can rely on their experience and see the possible error even before the initial testing or recognize the solution using intuition, consulting with colleagues instead of waiting for the full test-cycle to be performed and analyzed. However, such tests have its disadvantages, such as possible human errors, labor costs, and the inability to repeat the same check operations many times with a constant high accuracy.
On the other hand, automated QA is based on the use of the previously coded test scripts, which then are being executed and processed with the help of a pre-set algorithm. The clear thing about automated tests is that they follow predefined scripts’ algorithms exactly to ensure consistency in the execution of test tasks, which allows you to speed up the process and increase its accuracy. Therefore, you can repeat tests many times and at high speed, which helps to identify defects more efficiently and in the shortest possible time.
However, automated QA also has its limitations. Automated programs suit best for easy-maintained applications or simple step-by-step ones, because creating a script for a complex repetitive cycle requires much qualifications and effort. They are not as effective in detecting new unexpected issues that may be vulnerable to manual vs automation testing, that’s why checking everything by hand will take less time and effort in the end.
Reproducibility: Automated tests rerun ability makes it easier to fix bugs as you are not limited by the amount of checks.
Unlike human-performed tests, automated tests hold the unlimited potential for reproducibility as they can be re-performed unlimitedly till the error is found and defined to be fixed. Basically, you can rerun the same script hundreds of times, not wasting time on recreating different parts of algorithms to check how the error behaves in different testing environments.
When an automated test encounters a bug, developers can easily replicate the test and investigate the issue deeper. Manual QA, on the other hand, can be dependent on the skill and experience of the manual tester vs automation tester, this can result in inaccurate results, especially if performed by different specialists.
The ease of repeating automated tests also makes it easy to run them on a variety of operating systems, hardware platforms, and configurations to check software compatibility. This allows you to identify problems and errors that may occur under different conditions and with different system settings. Human-performed tests are often limited by the availability of the environment or various factors such as time constraints, making it less efficient for QA across platforms.
Another advantage of automated tests in terms of reproducibility is the ability to create a set of tests that can be run sequentially or simultaneously. This helps to save test results and compare them between different versions of the software or at different times.
Strong Coverage: Automated tests ensure a fine range of coverage compared to manual testers’ work, due to a wide selection of scenarios to follow during the process.
Manual QA vs automation QA can be recognised and clearly compared in terms of test coverage, as both of them offer various outcomes. If the project under test is kind of complex and requires different or multiple tests, all the scenarios will be really hard to run in person, not even talking about the amount of time required to complete the quality assurance cycle. A human tester needs more time and resources to test all possible use cases, especially when an app possesses complex functional dependencies. In this case, automation comes to the rescue, covering all the aspects, starting from simultaneously running various algorithms to testing hundreds of scenarios repeatedly.
Automated tests have the ability to run test scripts continuously and repeatedly, which provides a higher degree of validity and reliability of results. Human-performed QA, on the other hand, is error prone and can be limited by time or resource constraints, as well as the level of fatigue and concentration of the tester.
Cost-Effectiveness: Once set up, automated tests require minimal human intervention, leading to long-term cost savings.
Manual testing vs automation testing has its drawbacks. First of all, it involves a big amount of human labor, besides the knowledge and qualifications to be provided with the experience. Testers must carefully go through each step of the program, record the results and analyze them. This takes a significant amount of time and resources, especially if you need to retest the product after the detection and fixing of a bug.
In addition, human-performed tests involve a human factor, which can lead to errors. Testers may miss certain cases, fail to notice a bug or misbehavior due to unsatisfactory environmental conditions. As a result, defects may go unnoticed, which can lead to serious consequences in the future.
Talking about other advantages, automated tests lead to a big amount of resource saving benefits. Once set up, automated tests require minimal human intervention. They run quickly and efficiently and allow you to repeat the same tests over and over without additional labor costs.
Regression Testing: Automation is ideal for performing repetitive regression tests, allowing rapid validation after each code change.
Automation in regression QA is considered the most preferred approach for several reasons. First, such kinds of tests include forward and step-back scenarios where different parts of codes are being checked and validated during one test cycle. Automation makes it much easier to process these operations, reducing the time, effort and the whole cost of QA.
Secondly, automation provides a high degree of accuracy in regression manual testing vs automation testing. If you run the same tests personally, due to fatigue or inattention, it can lead to more errors that are being missed by a human tester. Automated tests are executed according to the same script every time without human intervention, which guarantees the high accuracy of the outcome.
The third benefit of automated regression tests is the ability to test the whole code or the piece of it quickly after every change. In the active development of a digital solution, changes in the code occur on a daily basis. Re-running all regression tests by hand each time after a change can be very complex and time-consuming, not even talking about the cost of every other manual test within the product life-cycle.
Finally, automated regression tests improve the productivity of the development team. Running regression tests manually takes a lot of time and effort, which can take a significant amount of resources from the development process itself.
Performance Testing: Automated tools can simulate thousands of virtual users, providing accurate performance insights that manual QA can’t match.
With manual tests by physical means, it is possible to simulate only a limited number of users, which may not reflect the real load on the system. Automated tools allow you to create thousands of virtual users who interact with the application at the same time. In this way, you can get an idea of the actual operating conditions of the system and identify its problems when working with a large load.
Another significant benefit of automated performance tests is the ability to provide accurate data about the performance of an application. Automated tools can record information about system response time, resource usage, amount of data transferred, and other performance metrics. This data can be presented in the form of graphs, reports and other formats that allow analysts and developers to evaluate the effectiveness and stability of the system. Such information can be useful for identifying the causes of poor performance, optimizing algorithms.
Continuous Integration and Delivery (CI/CD): Automation seamlessly integrates into CI/CD pipelines, enabling faster and more reliable delivery of software updates.
In today’s software development environment, where speed and reliability are paramount success factors, test automation has become an integral part of the development process. One of the most effective ways to implement automation is to integrate into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines. The benefits of automated QA within CI/CD are fundamental to achieving faster and more reliable delivery of software updates.
The first benefit of automated tests within CI/CD is speed. With the help of automated tests, developers can quickly check changes in the code and detect errors at an early stage of development. This avoids the accumulation of problems in the code, which then become more difficult and costly to fix. Test automation in the CI/CD pipeline also reduces the amount of time spent on manual testing, freeing developers from routine and allowing them to focus on more creative work.
The second major benefit of automated CI/CD testing is reliability. Automated tests allow you to make sure that changes in the code do not lead to a violation of the functionality of existing functionality. Tests are run automatically every time the code is updated and identify possible problems that only humans could objectively assess.
To Wrap It Up
Both manual qa vs automation QA have their merits and should be considered based on the project’s specific requirements. However, in the era of quick software releases and increasing complexity, automated QA offers advantages in terms of speed, reliability, and repeatability. When selecting an automation testing company, consider their expertise, domain knowledge, tools and technologies, scalability, quality assurance practices, and cost-effectiveness.
Different automation testing companies use various tools and strategies to conduct their tests. Evaluate the proposed tools and methodologies of the shortlisted companies to ensure compatibility with your project requirements. Also consider aspects such as test script development, execution, maintenance, and reporting. It is advisable to choose a company
