09.09.2019 / 16:19
QA digest: Manual vs Automation testing
Today we congratulate all QA engineers, no matter what type of testing they handle, with Tester’s day and wish always find even the most hidden bugs! :)
In honor of this, we have prepared a software testing digest that briefly explains pros and cons of Manual and Automation testing.
Despite the appearance of automation testing, there are still many areas where manual testing stands stronger. Manual testing involves checking features by hand. Traditional manual testing perfectly suits for Exploratory, Usability and Ad-hoc testing. What are the advantages and disadvantages of manual testing?
Testing the essential functionality, UX, aesthetics or usability manually gives the right understanding of human behavior within different stages of the customer journey map. If you want to achieve high-quality End user experience, Manual testing shouldn’t be ignored.
Scalability & Flexibility
Manual testing suits well both small and big projects. Moreover, it can be easily integrated into Agile development environment as it welcomes changes within a software project.
Time & Costs
Manual testing needs a lot of time and human resources to handle testing, produce test cases and test reports. Time-consuming process and the probability of human error can increase cost that is one of the key factor affecting software testing. However, manual testing can become a profitable solution for small projects.
Manual testing can’t be used in some types of software testing like Performance testing, Load testing and Spike testing. You should take into account Automation testing for these cases.
Automation testing requires writing of code and test scripts to automate test execution. Automation testing will be a perfect solution for Regression, Performance and Load testing. Where can you win with automation testing and what are the drawbacks?
Overall test coverage
Automation testing provides a wide range of tests that can be executed within your software. Automation tools can cover the most complex test cases that are impossible for a human to handle. You can also expect earlier detection of bugs because of processing speed of automation tools. It increases the number of features and potential problem areas that can be tested.
Automation testing may require much time on planning, but it is still often faster than manual. Moreover, automation test cases can be reused through different testing approaches. Once the software testing infrastructure has been integrated, it can work for a long time if there are no changes in functionality and UI. Saving time on testing may also save money for your budget, but be careful: an expenditure on automation tools can be very high.
Access to results
Automation testing results can be accessed by stakeholders in the automation system. It is also useful in terms of training value: new QA and software engineers have an opportunity to learn unit test cases for better project understanding.
Lack of humanity
Even the most innovative automation testing tools cannot replace human intuition and behavior. That is why automation testing isn’t suitable for checking the usability and effectiveness of visual aspects of UI.
Sensitivity to changes
Automation testing relies on test scripts. In case of changes that occur after test scripts are written, they have to be modified. It means that you cannot examine something that hasn’t been considered in advance in the middle of the test run.
Whatever software project you develop, it's better to consider both types of testing. Manual testing can easily cope with bugs in areas that are challenging for automation testing tools. Exposit QA Engineers have strong skills in different types of manual and automation testing providing software testing services of any complexity. If you need a talented QA team for your software project, we would like to hear from you.