(701) 888-9087


Automation vs Manual

The “What”, the “When”, and the “Why”

In today’s software-driven world, assuring the performance, security, and usability of applications is paramount. This places immense importance on the testing phase. But how do you determine whether automation or manual testing suits your business best? First, we have to understand both methodologies.

Understanding QA Automation

What is QA Automation?

QA Automation is the process of leveraging specific software tools to execute predefined test scenarios. Essentially, it’s akin to having a robotic assistant that performs repetitive tasks without fatigue, ensuring consistent, swift testing, every single time.

Benefits of Automation:

  • Speed: Automated tests run at incredible speeds, turning hours of manual testing into mere minutes of automated checks. This quick execution makes it particularly valuable for tests that need to be run frequently and consistently.

  • Consistency: The beauty of automation is the ability to guarantee the exact same test conditions every time. There’s no room for human variance, which ensures consistent results and trustworthy insights into the software’s performance.

  • Scalability: For projects with an expansive suite of tests, automation can be a game-changer. It can handle vast arrays of test cases, ensuring every scenario is checked and validated, especially beneficial when testing large or complex applications.

  • Continuous Integration: In our fast-paced development world, integrating testing into the DevOps process is invaluable. Automated tests can be seamlessly integrated into development pipelines, facilitating quicker and more reliable software releases.

Challenges of Automation:

  • Initial Setup: While automation offers long-term benefits, the initial phase of setting up automated tests can be resource-intensive. It requires careful planning, tool selection, and script development, which might be a hurdle for some businesses.

  • Maintenance: As software evolves, so must the test scripts. Frequent changes in the software’s UI or functionality mean that scripts require regular updates, which can be both time-consuming and challenging.

  • False Alarms: An unexpected downside to automation is the occasional occurrence of false positives or negatives. These require manual oversight to verify, potentially slowing down the testing process.

Delving into Manual Testing

What is Manual Testing?

Manual Testing, as the term implies, requires human testers to interact with the software, mimicking actions and tasks that an end-user might perform. This method leverages the tester’s experience, skills, and intuition to identify potential issues.

Benefits of Manual Testing:

  • Human Intuition: The human touch can often catch nuanced issues that might go unnoticed by automated scripts. Testers can identify subtle usability issues, visual inconsistencies, or even unexpected software behaviors, providing a comprehensive understanding of user experience.

  • Flexibility: One of the hallmarks of manual testing is its adaptability. Testers can quickly pivot their approach, modify tests on-the-fly, or delve into exploratory testing, making it especially effective for unscripted or ad-hoc scenarios.

  • Immediate Start: Manual tests shine in their simplicity. They can be initiated without the need for elaborate setups, software tools, or predefined scripts. If there’s a piece of software ready for evaluation, manual testing can commence.

Challenges of Manual Testing:

  • Time-Intensive: While manual testing offers depth, it’s often at the expense of speed. Especially with repetitive tests, manual methods can be considerably more time-consuming, potentially slowing down the development cycle.

  • Human Error: No tester is infallible. Especially with monotonous or repetitive tasks, there’s always a risk of oversight, skipped steps, or inconsistencies in the testing process.

  • Scalability Issues: As the test suite grows, managing and executing manual tests can become daunting. For large-scale projects, relying solely on manual methods might not be the most efficient approach.

Comparing the Two: Which is Right for You?

When to Choose Automation:

  • For Large Projects: Automation shines in environments with vast test suites, especially for projects that demand frequent regression testing. If you find yourself running the same set of tests repeatedly, automation can be a lifesaver. It eliminates the tedium and ensures that each test iteration is executed with the same rigor and consistency. By automating these repetitive tasks, businesses can ensure efficiency and thoroughness in their testing processes.

  • Scalability: In projects where QA support is an on-going requirement, having automation in place ensures consistent and predictable support throughout team changes. With a framework already in place, businesses can reliably and efficiently onboard new QA to maintain and make full use of the automated tests.

  • Varied Testing Environments: When testing needs to span across multiple devices, browsers, or configurations, automation provides the versatility to swiftly cover all these bases, ensuring comprehensive compatibility checks.

When to Choose Manual Testing:

  • For Exploratory Needs: When the path isn’t strictly defined, and the approach is based on the tester’s judgment and intuition, manual testing is the method of choice. It offers the freedom to explore, experiment, and uncover hidden issues.

  • Short-Term Projects: In projects where the software undergoes rapid changes and might not be stable for long, setting up automation might be overkill. Here, manual testing provides the flexibility and immediacy needed.

  • Usability Testing: UI/UX testing is a major factor for any customer-facing application or product. To genuinely understand the user experience, you need human testers. Manual methods provide insights into the intuitiveness, aesthetics, and overall user experience of the software.

Hybrid Approach – Best of Both Worlds:

Blending the strengths of both manual and automated testing can often yield the most comprehensive results. By ensuring the speed and consistency of automation and combining it with the adaptability and depth of manual testing, businesses can achieve an optimal testing balance.


Deciding between manual and automated testing is a multifaceted consideration, deeply rooted in the project’s scope, objectives, and available resources. While automation offers unparalleled speed and consistency, manual testing brings depth, intuition, and a unique human touch. Often, a synergistic blend of both methods is the key to holistic software quality assurance.

Most importantly, this article isn’t limited to newer businesses or teams just starting out. Seasoned enterprises with established QA teams should also heed this information. Every product, regardless of its stage in the business lifecycle, demands continuous QA refinement. Business needs are an ever-shifting landscape, and your QA approach should dynamically evolve alongside it. It’s prudent to reevaluate your QA strategies every 6 months to a year, probing whether there’s a tilt towards automation, an inclination for manual testing, or if a balanced amalgamation is what’s warranted. By routinely reassessing, you ensure that your product maintains the quality and reliability that your customers expect and deserve.

Are you pondering over your testing strategies or seeking expert QA staffing solutions? ForgeQA is here to help, where our commitment to quality assurance is unwavering.

Computer code on screen

Leave a Reply