Contact us
Technical Insights on Quality Assurance Practices: Automated and Manual Testing Technical Insights on Quality Assurance Practices: Manual and Automated Testing

Technical Insights on Quality Assurance Practices: Automated and Manual Testing

Mar 21, 2024

6 mins read

With the increasing reliance on software across all industries, the cost of bugs is higher than ever. For example, poor software quality costs the U.S. economy more than $2.08 trillion annually. The ultimate solution helping the companies avoid costly errors is applying the best quality assurance practices, involving both manual or automated testing. 

In recent years, automated testing has emerged as a powerful tool to enhance software quality, offering a range of benefits over manual testing. However, manual testing practices still remain relevant, especially in cases that involve customer-facing app features. 

This article explores the ins and outs of both manual and automated testing, delving into the ideal scenarios for both practices. Explore the insights from our QA specialists to fully leverage these approaches. 

The Business Value of Testing

Before delving into the specifics of manual and automated testing, it’s crucial to understand the business value of testing. Quality assurance is not just about finding bugs, it’s about ensuring that the software meets customer expectations, performs reliably, and delivers a positive user experience. In today’s competitive landscape, where a single software glitch can tarnish a brand’s reputation, investing in robust testing practices is a strategic imperative.

We at Leobit apply a methodology that can be roughly divided into 4 consecutive steps presented on the table below.

what is automated testing

This practice allows us to embrace a structured approach and deliver bug-free and stable solutions.  

Choosing the Right Approach: Manual Testing an Automated Testing

When it comes to testing, there is no universal solution that fits each and every case. Different approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and are, in most cases, combined during the project. Depending on project requirements, timeline, and budget, you should choose the most fitting approach to different use cases and quality assurance tasks. 

Let’s explore two real-life scenarios to illustrate the effectiveness of each approach:

Scenario 1: Testing the solution’s usability and interface

In situations involving complex user interfaces (UIs) that demand human judgment and intuition, manual testing might be a better option than automated testing. QA specialists work closer with the product, identifying usability issues that an automated test script might fail to comprehend. In manual testing, a QA specialist interacts with a solution as a user and can embrace a more user-centric approach, which positively impacts the final product.

A notable example of successful manual testing in a project occurred when our team was developing a mobile banking application for a customer who wanted to attract more users to their solution. Manual test specialists played a crucial role in the project by offering valuable insights into the user experience. They pinpointed usability issues that automated tests might have missed and conducted exploratory testing, replicating real user interactions to guarantee that the new UI aligned with customer expectations.

Scenario 2: Testing the functionality of large apps with tons of repetitive tasks

Automated testing shines in scenarios that require repetitive, time-consuming tests, such as regression testing. Simply put, automated testing helps QA specialists save time and effort, reducing the solution’s time to market. 

For example, one of Leobit’s currently ongoing projects is a large e-commerce platform that releases weekly updates. Automated tests can quickly verify that new changes have not introduced any regressions, ensuring the application remains stable and reliable. This approach not only saves time but also reduces the risk of human error associated with manual regression testing.

Manual vs. Automated Testing: Pros and Cons

By carefully considering the purpose of the project and its specific requirements, organizations can choose the most appropriate testing approach to maximize the value of their testing efforts. Let’s dive more deeply into the pros, cons of each approach.

testing automated

QA Types for Manual Testing and Automated Testing

Now, let’s proceed with the list of ideal QA types for both testing approaches that we have overviewed. Both practices have a vast list of use cases. Here we have gathered manual and automated testing examples that our QA specialists encounter in their practice most frequently. 

Manual Testing

  • Usability testing: Manual testing is well-suited for usability testing, providing insights into the user interface and experience.
  • Ad hoc testing: Manual testing can be used for ad hoc testing, allowing testers to explore the application and identify issues that automated tests may miss.
  • User acceptance testing (UAT): Manual testing is often used for UAT, where end-users validate the application against their requirements.
  • Exploratory testing: Manual testing allows testers to explore the application and find defects without predefined test cases.
  • Compatibility testing: Manual testing can be used to ensure that the application functions correctly across different browsers, devices, and operating systems.

Automated Testing

  • Regression testing: Automated tests are ideal for regression testing, ensuring that new changes do not break the existing functionality.
  • Performance testing: Automated tests can simulate load and stress conditions, helping QA specialists identify performance bottlenecks.
  • Integration testing: Automated tests can be used for integration testing, verifying that different components of the application work together correctly.
  • Unit testing: Automated tests are often performed to ensure that individual units or components work correctly while being isolated.
  • Security testing: Automated tests can effectively scan for vulnerabilities and security loopholes in software, exposing potential threats within the application.


Both manual testing and automation testing have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them in different use cases depends on various factors, such as the purpose of the project, budget, and timeline. While automated testing offers speed, efficiency, and reliability, manual testing provides flexibility and a human touch, potentially, improving the app’s usability. 

Ultimately, the right combination of both approaches is the most efficient strategy, allowing organizations to leverage the benefits of each approach, based on their specific needs and requirements. 

We at Leobit are committed to maintaining quality standards and ensuring the flawless operation of our clients’ products. Our expertise encompasses diverse QA auditing practices, as well as both manual software testing and test automation services. Our experienced QA team has earned us continuous gold-level partnership with ISTQB, a global initiative that distinguishes organizations worldwide for their exceptional support of software testing staff development through certifications.

Contact us if you need help with picking the best-suitable QA approach for your specific needs.