Manual vs. automated tests: which method brings the greatest added value?
Software errors cost time, money and, in the worst case, the trust of users. Companies are therefore faced with the challenge of developing an efficient test strategy that ensures quality while remaining cost-effective. Automated tests promise speed and consistency, while manual tests score points where human judgment is required. But where is the boundary between the two approaches? And how can a balance be found that takes both technical and economic factors into account?
It is crucial that quality assurance (QA) is integrated into the development process at an early stage. Detecting errors early saves resources and increases product quality. In this article, we examine the strengths and weaknesses of both testing methods and show how companies can find an effective mix of manual and automated testing.
Do you want bug-free software that delights your customers?
Our QAaaS model gives you access to experienced QA experts and state-of-the-art testing methods without having to invest in expensive infrastructure and personnel. We offer you a comprehensive range of services that will put your software through its paces.
Advantages and limitations of manual tests
Manual tests play an important role when it comes to exploratory tests, UX evaluations or unforeseeable errors. They are flexible, but time-consuming and only scale to a limited extent.
Strengths of manual tests
- Exploratory tests: Manual tests are particularly suitable for exploratory tests where testers do not strictly follow predefined scripts, but can react flexibly to unforeseen errors.
- UX tests: The usability (user experience) of an application can best be assessed through manual tests. Automated tests can check functionalities, but cannot capture subjective factors such as design, usability or emotional reactions of users.
- Discovery of unexpected errors: A major advantage of manual testing is that testers often encounter problems that go beyond the actual test points when carrying out a test case. Human intuition, experience and situational thinking make it possible to recognize anomalies or unforeseen errors.
- Flexibility: Manual tests can be carried out quickly without a great deal of preparation, while automated tests often require adjustments.
- Cost efficiency for one-off tests: One-off or infrequently performed tests are often not worthwhile for automation and are more efficient to perform manually.
Limitations of manual tests
- Time-consuming: Manual tests require a lot of time, especially for repeated test runs, e.g. regression tests.
- Scaling problems: While small projects can still be covered with manual tests, large applications with many features quickly reach their limits.
- Lack of consistency: As manual tests are carried out by humans, they can be inconsistent and turn out differently depending on the tester.
- Increased susceptibility to errors: People make mistakes, whether through carelessness or varying interpretations of test results.
- Limited repeatability: The same test may vary slightly when re-run, as input variables such as test devices, test environments and other external factors are difficult to bring back to the original state.
Advantages and limitations of automated tests
Automated tests are efficient, repeatable and particularly suitable for large volumes of text. However, they require a high initial investment and are less flexible.
Strengths of automated tests
- Speed: Automated tests can cover a large number of test cases in a very short time and are ideal for recurring regression tests.
- Repeatability: An automated test follows exactly the same pattern every time it is run and delivers consistent results.
- Cost efficiency in the long term: After initial implementation, automated tests can cover large test volumes cost-effectively.
- Scalability: Automated tests make it possible to efficiently test large and complex applications with numerous components.
- Integration into CI/CD pipelines: Automated tests can be seamlessly integrated into continuous integration and deployment processes to improve quality assurance.
Limits of automated tests
- High initial investment: Developing and maintaining test automation can be expensive, both in terms of money and time.
- Limited flexibility: Automated tests can only test what they were programmed for. Unpredictable errors or UX problems remain undetected.
- Maintenance effort: Changes to the software can break existing automated tests, making regular adjustments necessary.
- Implementation complexity: Writing automated tests requires technical expertise and can become an additional hurdle for teams.
- Lack of human intuition: Automated tests only detect predefined defects, but not contextual issues or usability weaknesses.
Software Quality Assurance
Software quality is crucial - but often there is a lack of time, resources or the right know-how to establish effective QA processes. Take advantage of our free webinar to learn how to successfully integrate quality management into your development processes.
Decision factors: Which tests to automate?
Not all tests are suitable for automation. Companies need to weigh up the costs, benefits and the type of tests in order to develop an optimal strategy?
Cost-benefit analysis
A cost-benefit analysis should be carried out before tests are automated. The following aspects should be considered:
- Frequency of tests: tests that are repeated regularly (e.g. regression tests) should be automated.
- Complexity of the test cases: Tests with many manual interactions or subjective evaluations (e.g. UX tests) are difficult to automate.
- Fault tolerance: Critical tests that do not require human interpretation (e.g. API tests or unit tests) are ideal for automation.
Recommendation for an optimal test mix
The best strategy combines both methods:
Unit tests and integration tests: Should be automated as far as possible, as they are executed frequently and must deliver consistent results.
- End-to-end tests: A mix of automated and manual tests makes sense. Automation covers standard cases, while manual tests are used for exploratory scenarios.
- UX tests: Should be carried out manually to obtain realistic user feedback.
- Smoke tests: A combination of manual and automated tests helps to detect critical errors at an early stage and quickly check the overall software status.
QA as an integral part of the development process
A common mistake in many companies is to include QA late in the development process. However, the earlier test strategies are defined and implemented, the more efficiently and cost-effectively errors can be avoided. Automation can support this, but human testers remain indispensable for evaluating qualitative aspects.
Conclusion: The right balance between manual and automated
A successful test strategy requires a balanced combination of manual and automated tests. While automation ensures efficiency and consistency, manual testing is essential for exploratory scenarios and UX evaluations. Companies should regularly review and adapt their test strategy to ensure quality and cost-effectiveness. Those who automate cleverly and still take the human factor into account will achieve the best results.
The following applies: quality assurance should be integrated into the development process from the outset. This is the only way to build a robust, scalable and cost-effective test strategy that contributes to long-term competitiveness.
Optimize your software quality with our QA assessment!
Get a professional as-is analysis of your QA processes & discover targeted potential for improvement.
