Can Automation Replace Manual Testing? Probably. But It Shouldn’t, and Here’s Why

Are you really sure you want to go with automated testing? The perks of automation are very shiny, successfully blinding us to the amount of effort going into it. More significantly, they overshadow the value of manual QA. And that can actually be dangerous for your project. So, let’s be objective. And let’s compare manual vs automated testing in terms of their requirements, limitations, and benefits for your business.

What Is Automation and Manual Testing?

First thing to note is that manual testing vs automation testing are human-driven and machine-operated, respectively. This distinction is essential as it clearly describes core strengths and weaknesses of the two methods.

What Is the Difference Between Automation and Manual Testing?

The key dissimilarity is that manual testing fully relies on the human mind. So, it comes with the pros and cons of a biological brain. Automation’s digital part gives it a certain boost. But since it can’t operate on its own, it needs a person’s oversight. Always. Here’s what we can learn from that disparity alone.

Manual testing:

• Is ideal for catching obscure and unexpected behaviors.
• Lets engineers think on the spot, adjusting tests as needed.
• Doesn’t need an extensive setup, making it cost-effective for many projects.

At the same time, there are certain downsides to it, too.

• Human effort limits scalability, increasing costs as test coverage grows.
• It’s prone to human error, which can impact reliability and repeatability.
• Large apps require significant resources to test comprehensively.

Automated testing has some exclusive perks. For example, it:

• Can run thousands of tests quickly, reducing release cycles and time to market.
• Eliminates human errors, ensuring consistent validation.
• Reduces manual effort, making testing more efficient.

Yet, it also presents unique drawbacks, such as it:

• Cannot adapt to new issues or concerns without human intervention.
• Requires setup, maintenance, and a dedicated QA team to manage scripts.
• Doesn’t guarantee a flawless product; critical gaps may still exist.

As you can see, automated engineering testing vs manual testing have their own merits and vices. And that prompts an important question.

Why Automation Testing Is Better than Manual?

For years, automation testing services have been a staple in tons of projects. They indeed outperform human-driven checks in terms of speed and accuracy. But they lose by a landslide when it comes to context. Specifically, automation can’t:

• Think outside predefined scripts, so it won’t find hidden or unforeseen defects.
• Evaluate user experience or user-friendliness of an app.
• Undergo rapid edits, calling for comprehensive alterations when something changes.
• Assess things like readability, visual appeal, or overall intuitiveness.
• Function without precise structure and continuous upkeep.

The simplest way to explain why automation isn’t better than manual QA is to remember that each of its advantages comes with a “but.”

• It’s quick but expensive.
• It’s accurate but requires ongoing updates.
• It’s consistent but lacks flexibility.
• It’s scalable but doesn’t handle nuance.
• It’s efficient but can’t replace human insight.

Of course, the same principle applies to manual testing. It’s a game of “here’s a carrot, but here’s also a stick”. In terms of the bigger picture, automation and manual testing aren’t superior or inferior to one another. They simply serve different purposes.

Which Is Better: Automation Testing or Manual Testing?

With the above in mind, let’s figure out what manual tests vs automated tests are better for.

To do that, we should note that automated software testing services weren’t “created” to replace manual QA. The two approaches are meant to complement each other. And today, they effectively cancel out each other’s limitations. This balance is precisely what allows companies to productively manage their QA resources and develop better products.

Let’s take a look at the advantages of manual testing vs automated testing to demonstrate this.

As you can see, it’s not the question of which is just better — manual testing vs automation testing. It’s all about what either is better for.

For example, manual testing services give you:

• Better flexibility and adaptability.
• Advanced usability and UX testing.
• Cost-effectiveness and a quick start.
• Refined quality via exploratory checks.
• Enhanced security through sophisticated testing.

And automation offers:

• Fast execution, scalability, and efficiency.
• Minimized human errors.
• Long-term efficiency and reduced testing time.
• Prompt and accurate performance testing.
• Better focus on other tasks as automated tests run in the background.

So, why would you want to settle for only half of these perks? You can have all of them. That’s exactly why automation and manual QA should come together and be used as an inseparable duo. Yet, it’s not always possible.

Does Automation Replace Manual Testing?

Technically, automation can exist without manual QA and vice versa. But you won’t get the same results since both have their limitations. Alas, sometimes, teams have no choice but to accept those limitations and try to work around them. And for some types of projects, a certain approach is simply a better fit.

When Do You Choose Automated Testing over Manual Testing?

Automation’s biggest merits are speed and precision. So, it’s most suitable for:

• Large-scale projects with frequent updates.
• Repetitive testing needs.
• Long development lifespans.
• High-volume user interactions.
• Multi-platform or multi-device support.
• Continuous deployment and fast release cycles.
• Strict compliance and regulatory requirements.
• High-risk applications.
• Complex business logic and large data sets.
• High test volume and scalability needs.
• Frequent integration with third-party systems.
• Global or distributed development teams.

When Do You Prefer Manual Testing over Automation Testing?

Since manual testing is flexible and comparatively inexpensive, it’s most suitable for:

• Small-scale projects or limited functionality.
• Early development stages or prototyping.
• Short-term projects or tight deadlines.
• Projects with frequent requirement changes.
• Exploratory testing needs.
• Limited resources or budget.
• Short-term testing of specific features or isolated functionality.
• Non-technical or less experienced teams.
• Unstable or evolving software.
• One-time or rarely tested scenarios.
• Subjective testing requirements.

But, as we’ve mentioned earlier, it’s better to combine automated and manual QA. For example, you can have most of your checks done by hand. But to save time and increase productivity, you can automate, say, performance or compatibility tests. Similarly, you can have the majority of your project automated. And reserve manual verification for things like usability or exploration of business-critical scenarios.

Briefly, you don’t have to overhaul your entire product to get the benefits of manual or automated testing. You can introduce them in portions where they’re most useful.

How to Switch from Manual Testing to Automation?

Manual testing is the allfather of quality assurance. And most projects start with hands-on checks as they allow teams to figure an app out, creating a base that later can be built around. So, given the above, how do you start adding automation to your development? How to move from manual to automation testing?

Well, first of all, you need to have most of your project settled. That means there shouldn’t be many changing elements or upcoming system reforms. Remember that automation can only work in a stable environment. So if you’re still structuring your product, automated tests have to wait.

Once you have everything stabilized, you can follow this simplified guide.

1. Identify repetitive, time-consuming, and high-risk test cases best suited for automation.
2. Define goals for automation: do you want to improve test coverage, reduce manual effort, or have faster releases? The aims you choose will dictate where you apply automated testing. They’ll also help you design targeted success metrics.
3. Choose a framework that supports your app type, integrates with your tech stack, and aligns with your team’s skills.
4. Complement your framework with tools for test management, reporting, and CI/CD integration.
5. Build or hire a team whose skills will help support your efforts. If you find it tricky to locate suitable experts, consider low- and no-code automation solutions. Alternatively, you can turn to QA outsource to get quick access to specific experts.
6. Write modular, reusable scripts with clear documentation to support long-term automation success. Yes, you’re starting small. But with the resources going into automation, you want to ensure you have enough to go on further.
7. Begin with a pilot project. Automate a small, high-value test suite to validate the approach before scaling. You want to start with impactful tests to better understand the results, have an actual effect on development, and not waste effort.
8. While not obligatory, try to integrate with CI/CD pipelines. Automate execution within your development workflow to ensure early bug detection and quick feedback.
9. Regularly review test performance, refine scripts, and expand automation based on evolving project needs.
10. Don’t get too excited and forget about manual testing vs automation testing differences. Keep manual QA in your processes and rely on it as needed.

Remember that automation doesn’t simply change how you create test cases. There will be some workflow alterations, too.

• Create a strategy for handling test data (e.g., using static or dynamic data for automated runs).
• Cross-train team members to ensure developers and QA engineers work together effectively.
• Assign time for teams to maintain and update automated tests when the app changes.
• Set up stable test environments for consistent execution, such as using Docker or virtual machines.
• Set up automated test reports to be generated after every test run.

Also, keep in mind that automation isn’t a “set it and forget it” solution. It will evolve alongside your project. And it needs continuous upkeep to function well.

How to Automate Manual Test Cases?

Now, to the heart of your automated testing — scripts. Here, it’s all about skills. How you write your test cases is pretty much half of automation’s success. So, be sure you have experienced specialists working with you.

After you’ve selected your scenarios, tools and frameworks, and set up the environment, here’s what you do next:

1. Review the existing manual test case. Understand the test steps and identify the flow, actions, inputs, expected results, and any validation checks.
2. Convert each action in the manual test into commands for the automation tool. Say the manual test requires entering a username. Then the script should contain a command that inputs that data into the corresponding field.
3. For every expected result in the manual test, add an assertion or validation in your automated test. This checks whether the app behaves as expected.
4. Input the test data directly into the script. You can either hardcode it (e.g., usernames, passwords) or pull it from external files or databases if you want more dynamic data.
5. If the manual test involves decision-making or waiting for conditions (e.g., wait for a page to load), add flow control to the automated script.
6. Group related actions (e.g., login steps, form submission) into functions or methods.
7. Once the script is written, execute it in your testing environment to verify that it works well.
8. If the automated test fails, analyze the logs and debug the script to find any issues.

When you’re just starting out with automation, you might want to consider a general QA engineer. It’s a specialist who’s proficient in both manual and automated testing. They can handle manual checks for as long as you need. And when you’re ready to automate, they can help you quickly switch since they already know your project. Such experts are a great alternative to having two separate professionals.

Can Automation Testing Replace Manual Testing?

We have to say, there is a potential of manual testing being automated (however illogical it sounds). With the developmental pace of emerging tech, especially AI, we’re already seeing automation add-ons that help it be more flexible and undemanding.

Here are some of the things AI-driven tools can do already:

• Generate test cases based on the app’s UI or underlying code.
• Detect changes in elements (such as IDs or button labels) and modify the test scripts without manual intervention.
• Analyze code changes and suggest the most relevant tests to run.
• Predict future defects or weaknesses in the app.
• Identify and log bugs by assessing app behavior during test execution.
• Locate visual discrepancies or UI regressions that might not be caught by traditional functional tests.
• Generate dynamic test data based on patterns.
• Convert natural language descriptions of requirements into test cases.
• Let engineers interact with bots that can execute tests based on spoken or written commands.
• Continuously monitor the app during test execution, providing immediate feedback.

That sounds very impressive. Most importantly, it sounds valuable. But it’s still not enough to start carving manual QA’s gravestone. For now, there’s little to nothing to replace human creativity and intuition (yes, that gut feeling based on years of experience is important).

Plus, when you look at an AI-generated picture, you still know that it’s an AI-generated picture. Something just feels off. So, why can’t we say that the same effect will apply to testing? Something might feel off to the user, too.

To be frank, at this point, we can only guess and wonder. AI might erase manual tests. But it definitely won’t happen soon. And it might not happen at all. Because, after all, there’s a reason why we value hand-crafted things more. There’s just that special human touch to them.

To Sum Up

To conclude, automation and manual testing can replace one another. But they really shouldn’t. It’s like deciding to only eat bread. You can survive on the pastries alone. Yet, your quality of life is likely to dwindle if you’re not constantly taking supplements to balance out your diet. Briefly, if you’re trying to choose between automated and manual QA, you’re just complicating everything.

Because with these two, it’s all about that equilibrium. Sometimes, you need automation. Sometimes, you need manual checks. So, don’t deprive your software of this balanced nutrition. Use both methods and see your project prosper.