In an era of digital transformation, where software controls virtually every aspect of our lives, the quality of IT systems has become a key factor in business success. According to the report “The Cost of Poor Software Quality in the US 2023” published by the Consortium for Information & Software Quality (CISQ), the cost of defective software in the US alone exceeded $2.08 trillion in 2022. This astronomical amount underscores the importance of effective testing in the software development process.
When faced with choosing a testing strategy, organizations often wonder about the optimal balance between manual and automated testing. This fundamental question takes on particular importance in the context of increasing complexity of IT systems and pressure to deliver business value quickly. The World Quality Report 2023-2024 indicates that 72% of organizations plan to increase investment in test automation, while emphasizing the continuing value of manual testing in specific areas.
In this comprehensive article, we will provide a comprehensive analysis of both testing approaches, based on the latest industry research and the experience of leading organizations. We’ll look at the advantages and disadvantages of each method, analyze the cost and return on investment, and point out in which situations a particular approach works best. Whether you’re an IT project manager, product owner, or quality assurance specialist, you’ll find practical guidance to help you choose the optimal testing strategy for your project.
How does manual software testing differ from automated testing?
In the fast-paced world of information technology, ensuring the quality of software is becoming increasingly challenging. The testing process is a key element in the software development cycle, and choosing the right testing strategy can determine the success or failure of a project. In this comprehensive article, we will take a detailed look at the differences between manual and automated testing, analyzing their specifics, advantages, disadvantages and the circumstances in which they work best.
What is manual testing of software?
Manual testing is the fundamental process of software verification, in which a human being personally performs all tests without the support of automation. The manual tester takes on the role of the end user, executing a series of planned test scenarios and conducting exploratory testing. This is the most traditional form of testing, which requires an excellent understanding of the user’s perspective and developed analytical skills.
In the manual testing process, the specialist performs a series of precisely defined steps, documenting every deviation found from the expected behavior of the application. On average, a manual tester spends 60% of his time executing tests, 25% preparing and updating test documentation, and the remaining 15% communicating with the development team and analyzing the results.
The effectiveness of manual testing largely depends on the experience and intuition of the tester. The average manual tester is able to perform 30 to 40 test cases per day, a number that can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the system under test and the detail of the test scenarios.
A particularly important aspect of manual testing is the ability to detect usability and accessibility problems in an application. A manual tester can assess whether the interface is intuitive, whether error messages are understandable to the end user, and whether the application meets accessibility standards for people with disabilities.
What does automated software testing consist of?
Automated testing is a sophisticated process in which special tools and scripts execute predefined test scenarios without human intervention. It is an approach that initially requires significant time and resources to prepare the test infrastructure and implement the scripts, but offers high efficiency in the long run.
The test automation process begins with a thorough analysis of requirements and the selection of appropriate tools. Today’s test automation solutions, such as Selenium, Cypress and TestComplete, offer extensive possibilities for automating different types of tests. Industry statistics indicate that it takes an average of 4 to 8 hours to create one automated test case, but after that it can be executed multiple times in seconds.
In automated testing, a key role is played by the test infrastructure, which must be properly configured and maintained. This includes the test environment, test management tools, continuous integration (CI/CD) systems and result reporting tools. According to industry research, about 30% of the time in test automation projects is spent on maintaining and updating the test infrastructure.
Test automation also requires regular maintenance and updating of test scripts in response to changes in the application under test. Statistics show that test automation teams spend an average of 20% of their time updating existing tests to keep them current and effective.
What are the key differences between manual and automated testing?
The fundamental differences between manual and automated testing involve many aspects of the testing process. The first significant difference is the speed of test execution. Automated tests can be executed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, achieving execution speeds up to 10 times faster than manual testing. In practice, this means that a set of tests that would manually take a week can be executed automatically in a single day.
Another important aspect is the repeatability and precision of test execution. Automatic tests always perform exactly the same steps in an identical manner, eliminating the risk of human error. Studies show that in manual tests about 5-10% of errors are due to inaccuracies in the execution of test procedures, while in automatic tests this problem is virtually non-existent.
There are also differences in costs and resources. Test automation requires a much higher initial investment – on average 3-4 times higher than manual testing. However, in the long run, with sufficient test scale, automation can save 40-60% compared to manual testing.
In terms of flexibility and adaptation to change, manual testing has an advantage. A manual tester can immediately adapt to changes in the application, while updating automated tests requires reprogramming scripts, which can take a significant amount of time and resources.
When is it a good idea to use manual testing?
Manual testing is particularly valuable in certain design situations. First of all, it works well in the early stages of product development, when specifications are still fluid and subject to frequent changes. Under such conditions, the flexibility of the manual tester allows it to quickly adapt to new requirements without having to reprogram automated test scripts.
Exploratory testing is another area where human intuition and creativity are irreplaceable. Industry statistics show that about 30% of critical software bugs are detected precisely during exploratory testing, which by definition cannot be automated. A manual tester can spot abnormal system behavior that would be missed during the automated execution of predefined scenarios.
In projects requiring user interface usability (UI/UX) evaluation, manual testing is irreplaceable. Only a human can effectively evaluate aspects such as intuitive navigation, readability of messages or overall user experience. Studies indicate that about 40% of problems reported by end users relate precisely to usability aspects that cannot be fully verified automatically.
For short-term or budget-constrained projects, where the return on investment in automation might not be realized, manual testing is a more economical choice. Cost analysis shows that for projects lasting less than 6 months, test automation rarely delivers the expected financial benefits.
When do automated tests work best?
Test automation brings the greatest benefits in projects with specific characteristics and scale. For regularly repeated regression tests, automation can reduce execution time by up to 90% compared to manual testing. For large enterprise systems, where a single set of regression tests can contain more than 1,000 test cases, automation becomes a practical necessity.
In the context of performance and load testing, automation is virtually the only viable solution. Simulating hundreds or thousands of concurrent system users requires specialized automation tools such as JMeter or Gatling. These tests often need to be run for hours or days, which would be impossible to do manually.
Projects using DevOps and continuous integration (CI/CD) methodologies also require test automation. In environments where new software versions are deployed several times a day, automated testing is a key part of the deployment pipeline. Statistics show that companies using test automation in CI/CD processes reduce the time to market for new functionality by an average of 60%.
What are the advantages of manual testing?
Manual testing offers a number of unique advantages that make it remain an essential part of the software quality assurance process. A key advantage is flexibility and the ability to adapt immediately to changing requirements. A manual tester can quickly adapt his or her approach to new test scenarios without having to modify the code or test infrastructure.
Human intuition and the ability to detect abnormal system behavior are another major advantage of manual testing. Experienced testers can spot subtle anomalies that would be overlooked by automated testing. According to industry research, about 40% of critical software bugs are detected precisely during manual system exploration.
Manual testing is also irreplaceable in evaluating the usability and accessibility aspects of an application. Only a human can effectively assess whether an interface is intuitive and end-user friendly. In projects focusing on user experience (UX), manual testing provides invaluable qualitative information that cannot be obtained through automation.
What are the disadvantages of manual testing?
The main limitation of manual testing is the amount of time it takes to execute repeatable tests. For large systems, where a regression test suite may contain hundreds of test cases, manual execution of all scenarios can take up to several weeks. This significantly extends the software release cycle and increases operational costs.
The human factor, while often seen as an advantage, can also lead to inconsistency in test execution. Studies show that even experienced testers can make mistakes or skip steps in the testing process, especially when performing monotonous, repetitive tasks. According to industry statistics, about 5-8% of errors in manual test reports are due to mistakes in the testing process.
Scalability of manual testing is also a major limitation. With the increasing complexity of systems and the need for more frequent releases, increasing the team of manual testers may not be an efficient solution. Costs increase linearly with the number of testers, and coordinating a larger team becomes more challenging.
The problem of documentation and reproducibility of manual testing presents another challenge. Accurately documenting all test steps and their results is time-consuming, yet it may not include all relevant details. This makes it difficult to analyze errors and can lead to problems in reproducing defects found.
What are the advantages of automated testing?
Test automation offers significant benefits in terms of speed and efficiency of test execution. Automated tests can be run 24/7, dramatically reducing the time required to verify software changes. In a typical enterprise project, a complete set of automated tests can be executed in a matter of hours, whereas manual execution of the same tests would take several weeks.
Repeatability and consistency are other key advantages of automation. Automated tests always perform the exact same steps in an identical manner, eliminating the risk of human error and ensuring consistent results. This is particularly important in the context of regression testing, where even minor deviations in the testing process can lead to significant defects being overlooked.
In the long term, test automation can bring significant financial savings. Despite higher initial costs, a well-designed automated testing system can reduce testing costs by 40-60% per year. In addition, faster error detection through more frequent test execution allows for earlier remediation, which can reduce repair costs by up to 70%, according to studies.
Integration with CI/CD processes is another major advantage of automated testing. The ability to automatically run tests with every change in the code makes it possible to quickly detect potential problems and ensure the quality of each software version. Statistics show that companies using test automation in CI/CD pipelines achieve an average of 50% faster time to market for new features.
What are the disadvantages of automated testing?
Test automation, despite its undeniable advantages, also has significant limitations and challenges. The biggest barrier is the high upfront cost associated with implementing automation. Preparing the test infrastructure, purchasing tool licenses and training the team can consume a significant portion of the project budget. According to industry analyses, the average start-up cost of test automation in a medium-sized project can range from PLN 100,000 to 300,000.
Maintaining and updating automated tests is another major challenge. In fast-paced projects, where the user interface and functionality change frequently, the team must spend a significant amount of time adjusting test scripts. Statistics show that about 30% of the automation team’s time is spent on maintenance of existing tests. This can lead to a situation where the cost of maintaining tests outweighs the benefits of automating them.
The limited ability to detect unexpected errors is another drawback of automated tests. Automated tests check only what has been programmed into the test scenarios, and are unable to spot problems beyond the defined cases. In practice, this means that they can overlook significant defects that would be obvious to a manual tester.
What is the process of preparing manual tests?
Manual test preparation begins with a thorough analysis of functional and business requirements. The tester needs to understand not only the technical aspects of the system, but also the business context and end-user needs. This phase takes an average of 20-25% of the total test preparation time.
The next step is to design test cases. An experienced tester creates detailed scenarios that take into account both standard system use paths and edge cases. This process includes the identification of prerequisites, test steps, expected results and acceptance criteria. Industry statistics indicate that this stage produces an average of 3-5 test cases per day, depending on their complexity.
Test data preparation is an important part of the process. The tester must take care to create realistic data sets for thorough verification of system functionality. This includes both positive and negative data, as well as special borderline cases. In a typical project, the preparation of a complete test data set takes about 15-20% of the time spent on test preparation.
Test process documentation is a key part of preparation. It includes not only the test cases themselves, but also test plans, schedules, metrics and error reporting templates. Properly prepared documentation allows for effective management of the test process and facilitates communication within the team.
How does the process of creating automated tests work?
The test automation process begins with a detailed analysis of requirements and selection of appropriate tools. The team must evaluate which system components are best suited for automation, taking into account factors such as interface stability, frequency of changes and potential return on investment. This planning phase typically takes 2 to 4 weeks in a medium-sized project.
The implementation of a test framework is a fundamental step in the automation process. This includes the configuration of the test environment, the preparation of support libraries and the implementation of basic test support functionality. Statistics show that it takes an average of 100-150 man-hours of work for an experienced automator to create a robust test framework.
Developing test scripts is an iterative process, requiring close collaboration between automation and manual testers. Each test scenario must be analyzed for automation opportunities and then implemented using the tools of choice. In practice, an experienced automator can create 2 to 4 automated tests per day, depending on their complexity.
Verification and debugging of test scripts is a critical step in the process. Every automated test must go through a validation phase, where reliability and reproducibility are checked. According to industry data, about 20-25% of automated test development time is spent debugging and stabilizing scripts.
Which types of tests work better for manual testing?
Exploratory testing is the domain of manual testing, where human intuition and creativity are key. An experienced tester, examining an application without a strict script, can uncover unexpected bugs and usability issues that would be difficult to predict during the planning phase. Industry statistics show that, on average, 30% more critical bugs are discovered during exploratory testing than during the execution of predefined test cases.
Usability testing is another area where manual testing is irreplaceable. Evaluating the intuitiveness of an interface, the readability of messages or the overall user experience requires human judgment and an understanding of the application’s context of use. Studies indicate that about 60% of problems reported by end users relate to aspects of usability that cannot be effectively verified automatically.
Ad-hoc testing and beta testing, where test scenarios are not strictly defined, also work best when performed manually. Flexibility and the ability to quickly adapt to new situations allows manual testers to effectively detect problems in real-world application use cases. According to industry data, beta testing detects an average of 15-20% of bugs that are missed during standard functional testing.
Which types of tests are best to automate?
Regression tests are an ideal field for automation because of their repetitive nature and the need for frequent execution. In large projects, a set of regression tests can include hundreds or even thousands of test cases that would take weeks to execute manually. Automation allows these tests to be run in a matter of hours, reducing the time and cost of the testing process by up to 90%.
Integration tests and API tests also lend themselves well to automation. Verifying the correctness of communication between different system components requires precise and repeatable execution of multiple test scenarios. Tools such as Postman or REST Assured allow for efficient automation of API tests, enabling quick detection of system integration issues.
Performance and load tests are virtually impossible to perform without automation. Simulating hundreds or thousands of concurrent users, generating a large system load or long-term stability tests require specialized automation tools. In practice, well-automated performance tests can detect system scalability problems much earlier than would be possible with manual testing.
How do you compare the costs of manual and automated testing?
Analysis of testing costs requires consideration of many factors, both direct and indirect. In the case of manual testing, the main cost is the salaries of testers. The average monthly salary of a manual tester in Poland ranges from PLN 7,000 to 12,000 gross, depending on experience and location. To this should be added the cost of test management tools, documentation and training.
Test automation involves higher upfront costs. These include not only the salaries of automators (on average, PLN 12,000-18,000 gross per month), but also the cost of licenses for automation tools, test infrastructure and team training. According to industry analyses, the initial investment in test automation can range from PLN 100,000 to 300,000 for a medium-sized project.
The return on investment in test automation typically appears after 6-12 months, depending on the scale of the project and the efficiency of the implementation. Studies show that in the long term, automation can save 40-60% compared to manual testing, mainly due to a reduction in the time required for regression testing and faster error detection.
Which types of tests work better for manual testing?
Exploratory testing is the domain of manual testing, where human intuition and creativity are key. An experienced tester, examining an application without a strict script, can uncover unexpected bugs and usability issues that would be difficult to predict during the planning phase. Industry statistics show that, on average, 30% more critical bugs are discovered during exploratory testing than during the execution of predefined test cases.
Usability testing is another area where manual testing is irreplaceable. Evaluating the intuitiveness of an interface, the readability of messages or the overall user experience requires human judgment and an understanding of the application’s context of use. Studies indicate that about 60% of problems reported by end users relate to aspects of usability that cannot be effectively verified automatically.
Ad-hoc testing and beta testing, where test scenarios are not strictly defined, also work best when performed manually. Flexibility and the ability to quickly adapt to new situations allows manual testers to effectively detect problems in real-world application use cases. According to industry data, beta testing detects an average of 15-20% of bugs that are missed during standard functional testing.
Which types of tests are best to automate?
Regression tests are an ideal field for automation because of their repetitive nature and the need for frequent execution. In large projects, a set of regression tests can include hundreds or even thousands of test cases that would take weeks to execute manually. Automation allows these tests to be run in a matter of hours, reducing the time and cost of the testing process by up to 90%.
Integration tests and API tests also lend themselves well to automation. Verifying the correctness of communication between different system components requires precise and repeatable execution of multiple test scenarios. Tools such as Postman or REST Assured allow for efficient automation of API tests, enabling quick detection of system integration issues.
Performance and load tests are virtually impossible to perform without automation. Simulating hundreds or thousands of concurrent users, generating a large system load or long-term stability tests require specialized automation tools. In practice, well-automated performance tests can detect system scalability problems much earlier than would be possible with manual testing.
How do you compare the costs of manual and automated testing?
Analysis of testing costs requires consideration of many factors, both direct and indirect. In the case of manual testing, the main cost is the salaries of testers. The average monthly salary of a manual tester in Poland ranges from PLN 7,000 to 12,000 gross, depending on experience and location. To this should be added the cost of test management tools, documentation and training.
Test automation involves higher upfront costs. These include not only the salaries of automators (on average, PLN 12,000-18,000 gross per month), but also the cost of licenses for automation tools, test infrastructure and team training. According to industry analyses, the initial investment in test automation can range from PLN 100,000 to 300,000 for a medium-sized project.
The return on investment in test automation typically appears after 6-12 months, depending on the scale of the project and the efficiency of the implementation. Studies show that in the long term, automation can save 40-60% compared to manual testing, mainly due to a reduction in the time required for regression testing and faster error detection.
Which types of tests work better for manual testing?
Exploratory testing is the domain of manual testing, where human intuition and creativity are key. An experienced tester, examining an application without a strict script, can uncover unexpected bugs and usability issues that would be difficult to predict during the planning phase. Industry statistics show that, on average, 30% more critical bugs are discovered during exploratory testing than during the execution of predefined test cases.
Usability testing is another area where manual testing is irreplaceable. Evaluating the intuitiveness of an interface, the readability of messages or the overall user experience requires human judgment and an understanding of the application’s context of use. Studies indicate that about 60% of problems reported by end users relate to aspects of usability that cannot be effectively verified automatically.
Ad-hoc testing and beta testing, where test scenarios are not strictly defined, also work best when performed manually. Flexibility and the ability to quickly adapt to new situations allows manual testers to effectively detect problems in real-world application use cases. According to industry data, beta testing detects an average of 15-20% of bugs that are missed during standard functional testing.
Which types of tests are best to automate?
Regression tests are an ideal field for automation because of their repetitive nature and the need for frequent execution. In large projects, a set of regression tests can include hundreds or even thousands of test cases that would take weeks to execute manually. Automation allows these tests to be run in a matter of hours, reducing the time and cost of the testing process by up to 90%.
Integration tests and API tests also lend themselves well to automation. Verifying the correctness of communication between different system components requires precise and repeatable execution of multiple test scenarios. Tools such as Postman or REST Assured allow for efficient automation of API tests, enabling quick detection of system integration issues.
Performance and load tests are virtually impossible to perform without automation. Simulating hundreds or thousands of concurrent users, generating a large system load or long-term stability tests require specialized automation tools. In practice, well-automated performance tests can detect system scalability problems much earlier than would be possible with manual testing.
How do you compare the costs of manual and automated testing?
Analysis of testing costs requires consideration of many factors, both direct and indirect. In the case of manual testing, the main cost is the salaries of testers. The average monthly salary of a manual tester in Poland ranges from PLN 7,000 to 12,000 gross, depending on experience and location. To this should be added the cost of test management tools, documentation and training.
Test automation involves higher upfront costs. These include not only the salaries of automators (on average, PLN 12,000-18,000 gross per month), but also the cost of licenses for automation tools, test infrastructure and team training. According to industry analyses, the initial investment in test automation can range from PLN 100,000 to 300,000 for a medium-sized project.
The return on investment in test automation typically appears after 6-12 months, depending on the scale of the project and the efficiency of the implementation. Studies show that in the long term, automation can save 40-60% compared to manual testing, mainly due to a reduction in the time required for regression testing and faster error detection.
How do you choose the right testing strategy for your project?
Choosing the right testing strategy requires careful analysis of many project and organizational factors. The Digital Quality Report 2023, published by Accenture, highlights that organizations that tailor their testing strategy to the specifics of the project achieve, on average, 45% better software quality results than those using a one-size-fits-all approach.
The first step in choosing a strategy is to analyze the characteristics of the project. Gartner, in its report “Software Testing Strategies 2023,” presents a decision-making framework according to which projects can be classified based on four main parameters: business complexity, frequency of change, reliability requirements and available budget. An analysis of 500 projects showed that projects with high business complexity and frequent changes require a higher proportion of manual testing (40-50%) compared to stable and repeatable projects (20-30%).
Available resources and team competencies also play a key role in choosing a strategy. The “IT Skills and Salary Report 2023” by Global Knowledge indicates that organizations often underestimate the time needed to build test automation competencies. According to the study, the average time needed to become fully productive in test automation is 6-8 months, which should be taken into account in strategy planning.
Cost and ROI analysis should be an integral part of the decision-making process. Deloitte, in its “Technology ROI Analysis 2023” report, presents a methodology for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of test automation. According to their research, projects with a duration of less than 6 months rarely achieve a positive ROI from automation, while in longer-term projects (more than 12 months) automation can save 45-65% compared to manual-only testing.
Proper risk management is also among the key success factors. KPMG’s “Software Quality Risk Assessment Report 2023” highlights the importance of a balanced approach to testing. Their analysis shows that organizations using a hybrid testing approach (combining manual and automated testing) reduce the risk of critical errors in production by 60% compared to organizations relying solely on one type of testing.
The conclusions of this research indicate that the optimal testing strategy should be:
– Flexible and tailored to the specifics of the project
– Based on the real capabilities of the team
– Balanced in terms of the use of manual and automated tests
– Taking into account long-term quality and business goals
– Regularly reviewed and adjusted to meet changing needs
The challenge remains finding the right balance between the different types of testing. World Quality Report 2023-2024 (Capgemini/Sogeti) suggests the following breakdown for a typical enterprise project:
- 60-70% automated tests (mainly regression tests, smoke tests, API tests)
- 20-30% manual testing (exploratory testing, usability testing)
- 10-20% hybrid tests (partially automated)
In summary, an effective testing strategy must be tailored to the individual needs and capabilities of the organization, while taking into account industry best practices and available empirical data.
Contact
Contact us to find out how our advanced IT solutions can support your business by increasing security and productivity in a variety of situations.
