Home / DeveloperSection / Articles / Pros and Cons of automation and manual testing

Pros and Cons of automation and manual testing

Stella M884 17-Jul-2019

Manual testing is performed by hand. Quality Assurance (QA) experts guarantee that applications work appropriately by following conditions written in experiments. In spite of its crude nature, manual testing is as yet significant, as certain usefulness just can't be naturally tried. For instance, wearables and cell phones can require field testing in a physical domain. Portable applications frequently experience 'monkey tests' that recognize bottlenecks during unpredicted upsetting conditions. For example, what occurs if a client overlooks a cell phone in their pocket with an application running and they tap the screen inadvertently? Is it conceivable that they'll crash the application? Just manual testing can represent these situations.

Automated testing depends on pre-scripted tests that are run naturally. Their capacity is to contrast genuine outcomes and anticipated outcomes. Thusly, they can decide if an application executes true to form. Automated testing can execute dull assignments and relapse tests to check if an application performs effectively after recently actualized changes.

Automated Testing

Automated testing is an urgent component of Test-Driven Development (TDD). Test-driven improvement is described by the composition of experiments for every (Unit Tests) <>before the genuine code is composed. After the code is composed, these unit tests are run, and dependent on the aftereffects of these tests, code may be refectories (if important) or new tests included and executed. Here at Ruby Garage, we utilize a TDD way to deal with manufacture the majority of our items; this methodology encourages us to coordinate tests into every unit of an application and quickly construct quality programming items.

Why you need automated testing?  

To deal with tedious errands 

 After changes and adjustments are made to an application, you have to check on the off chance that it works appropriately. All together not to check the majority of the application's usefulness over and over, we use relapse tests. By running automated relapse tests we can distinguish new bugs with less exertion.

Since automated tests are controlled by devices and contents, the possibility of missing a bug or a deformity diminishes. This makes the testing procedure increasingly dependable and time-productive.

For cutting edge GUI testing 

Automated GUI tests distinguish and record contrasts in conduct between stages — for instance, crosswise over various internet browsers or working frameworks. Likewise, Automated GUI testing adequately discovers relapse mistakes.

To test burden and execution 

 There's basically no manual option for testing burden and execution. Automated tests reproduce a great many concurrent clients.

Manual Testing  

In spite of the apparently expansive inclusion of automated testing, manual testing shouldn't be thought little of. Actually, you need to test programming physically before you run automated testing. Despite the fact that manual testing requires much exertion, without it you can't make sure that test automation services are conceivable. One of the key testing standards is that 100% testing mechanization is unimaginable. Manual testing is as yet important.

How about we see which tests can't be automated (or would require a lot of exertion to automate):  

Exploratory testing 

This testing procedure is some of the time mistaken for specially appointed testing, however they're really extraordinary. During exploratory testing, a QA expert tests an item like a voyager, depending on his own involvement. In the wake of getting the full image of an item's usefulness, an analyzer structures experiments which he uses to further test the item. That is the means by which exploratory testing varies from specially appointed testing: in exploratory testing you depend on your own understanding and configuration experiments in the testing procedure. A specially appointed testing should be possible by any individual without planning.

UI testing  

 By executing UI tests, a QA pro approves the properties and conditions of interface components. Additionally, the QA group guarantees that plan components in the interface coordinate components in the last format.

As should be obvious, a few tests ought to be performed physically. This particularly identifies with tests that attention on UIs and ease of use. In spite of the fact that we could automate fundamentally everything, manual testing still gives a viable and quality check of bugs and mistakes.  

UI Acceptance  

Manual testing proves to be useful when you test UIs, particularly their visual perspectives. Mechanized tests essentially can't recognize shades of pictures or connections, text dimensions, motions, and featuring. Envision that your application has a bug that makes a connection be tiny to the point that you can scarcely observe it. Manual analyzers will quickly identify this bug, yet automated tests are not ready to see the deformity.

Beginning improvement organize  

Manual testing encourages analyzers to identify bottlenecks during the underlying advancement arrange which results in less time and assets being spent on fixing bugs. Here and there it's not objective to put cash and HR in automated testing during a flimsy period of an item's advancement. Nonetheless, in certain ways to deal with programming advancement, mechanized testing is a piece of the procedure at any stage.

Transient undertakings 

 Even however automated tests are gone for sparing time and assets, it requires some investment and assets to structure and look after them. Sometimes, for example, assembling a little special site, it very well may be considerably more productive to depend on manual testing.

Non-automatable cases  

Some tests can't be mechanized; this particularly concerns equipment related tests. Composing contents for mechanized checks of sensors, touchpad’s, and screens is automation unthinkable, and once in a while feasible. Additionally, a few information can be tried just physically. For instance, you can consequently test if a printer prints, however checking the quality and substance of printed pictures is best done physically.


There's no silver shot for testing during the improvement procedure. In spite of the wide assortment of testing procedures and instruments, we can't depend on a solitary methodology. Automated and manual testing each has their qualities and shortcomings. What we need to pressure is that regardless of how extraordinary automated tests are, you can't automate everything. Manual tests assume significant job in programming advancement and prove to be useful at whatever point you can't automate the procedure.

Updated 17-Jul-2019
Stella is a Content Writer and Digital Marketing Analyst with a demonstrated history of working in the Tech industry. She has written articles on software testing services, big data, analytics and latest trends in the tech world. She likes to try different cuisines and travelling to new places.

Leave Comment


Liked By