Manual or automated testing: when should you use each?
Manual testing means that a person follows the scenario: they enter data, observe the application’s behaviour, and evaluate the result. In automated testing, a tool performs prepared steps or calls and verifies predefined expectations. Depending on the configuration, tests can run independently or as part of a pipeline. A good strategy usually combines both approaches and decides where each scenario belongs.
Common problems that need to be solved
The debate tends to slide towards two extremes. One says “let us automate everything”; the other says “our testers are enough for that”. Both approaches can be unnecessarily expensive.
Not everything can or should be automated. Many scenarios run only a few times a year, and a suite that covers them will generally not pay for itself. With a larger product, on the other hand, manual regression testing before release can take days, and time pressure increases the risk that some scenarios will be skipped.
The right question is not “manual or automated?” but “where does this specific scenario belong?”
How to address it
We ask four questions about every scenario:
How often does it repeat? Frequency is one of the most important factors. A scenario you run at every release is a stronger candidate for automation. What you run twice a year will generally not pay for itself; manual verification tends to cost less there.
Is the scenario stable, or does it change? An established purchase flow is often a good candidate for automation. For a screen that is frequently redesigned, consider a later UI test or a check at a more stable level, such as the API.
What does it cost when this particular scenario breaks? A regular check can have more value for payment, sign-in, or ordering than for a rarely visited edge page.
What remains for people? An automated test verifies what you designed into it; human judgement remains important in exploratory testing, usability assessment, and the search for unexpected problems. When a tool takes over part of the routine, a tester can devote more time to precisely these tasks.
What the right combination gives you
- Automation where it has a chance to pay for itself and people where judgement matters, without indiscriminate spending.
- Regression testing that can run substantially faster than a fully manual check, without unnecessary automation of edge cases.
- A tester who performs value-added work instead of clicking through the same process indefinitely.
Next step
Are you unsure what to automate and what to leave alone? Contact us and we will review the scenarios and divide them by frequency, stability, and the cost of a defect. You can also find a balanced view in the advantages and disadvantages of automation.