Automation Testing vs. Manual Testing: Will Automation Replace Manual QA?

Inna M. by Inna M.
Created: 10/25/2022 | Updated: 03/20/2024

Automation Testing vs. Manual Testing: Will Automation Replace Manual QA?

Software testing is one of the most rapidly growing tech industries, with the software testing market being valued at $45 billion in 2022 and with an anticipated CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 6% between 2023 and 2030. The importance of quality assurance in the software industry is not up for debate, which is proven time and time again by seemingly promising solutions that eventually fail due to the lack of testing.

“How is a good software product different from a bad one? A good product is both well-developed and well-tested. A bad product can be well-developed or underdeveloped, but it’s always undertested. Testing is what separates good software from bad software and helps the stakeholders make sure that the product is consistent with everyone’s expectations and requirements.”

Andrii Nikitenko, Head of Operations at TestFort

Traditionally, software testing can be divided into various categories based on different parameters. However, the most common division is manual testing vs. automated testing. But what is the difference between automated testing and manual testing? When to choose automation testing and when manual testing? And does automation replace manual testing? This is exactly what we are going to discuss today.

What is manual testing?

Manual testing is a type of software testing where tests are executed by the QA engineer by hand, without the use of any automation tools. Manual testing is testing the software solution from a human perspective. It has been around for as long as software development itself and is the most vital component of the quality assurance process. Manual testing is suitable for a wide range of tasks, and this type of testing can be executed without a lengthy preparation process. Without manual testing, popular software products would never be able to perform as well as they do, have as much of an appealing UI, and be able to withstand possible attacks.

Key uses of manual testing

Manual testing is the first type of QA a company usually considers in an effort to maintain or improve the quality of the application. And in many cases, it remains the only type of testing used on a project. Here are a few situations when the use of manual QA makes the most sense:

  1. When the product is in the initial development phase. At this stage, the functionality and state of the application are subject to frequent changes, and manual testing is better equipped to deal with those changes. Automation testing, on the other hand, needs significant resources to be successful at this stage, which is not always justifiable.
  2. When the project is short-term and small. As mentioned above, launching testing automation requires a significant amount of human and material resources, as well as time, unlike manual testing, which can be introduced to the project in a matter of days. This is why it’s the preferred solution for small and medium projects.
  3. When testing the usability of the product. Some automation testing tools are doing a pretty good job of mimicking human behavior when interacting with the UI. Still, they are not yet able to fully imitate the many, often unpredictable things a human tester can think of when testing the usability of a solution.
  4. When user acceptance testing, ad-hoc testing, or exploratory testing is involved. Besides usability testing, these are the three types of testing that heavily rely on real human interaction with the product. It is possible to automate user acceptance, ad hoc, and exploratory testing to a degree, but at the moment, the results don’t come close to manual testing.
  5. When dealing with physical products. Testing physical devices, such as IoT products, car devices, or medical tech, is not always easy to automate, and it doesn’t always need to be automated. Flexible manual testing that can be easily adjusted to fit the needs of a product is a much better option in most cases.
manual testing

When not to use manual testing

Part of the discussion regarding the question “Is manual QA dying?” is due to the certain limitations that manual QAs are sometimes facing. Here is when the QA team should reconsider the decision to use manual testing:

  1. When you don’t have enough human resources. Having your manual QA team focus on repetitive tasks means they may not be able to allocate enough time to testing other important parts of the application.
  2. When you cannot afford to have human error. No matter how skilled a manual QA is, there is always a risk of human error, and sometimes the cost of it is simply too high.
  3. When you plan a long-term project. Automation testing is much better equipped to deal with large amounts of repeated tests than manual testing.

Assemble your ideal manual or automation testing team and reap the benefits of working with a team of experienced, deeply committed engineers.

Discuss a project

What is automation testing?

Automation testing is a popular software testing technique. Automated testing is the process that involves the use of automation tools and frameworks to execute the same test case suite over and over again. The key difference between manual and automation testing is that manual testing is entirely dependent on the human in front of the computer. In contrast, automated tests can be written once and run repeatedly with little to no human interaction.

Key uses of automation testing

While the advantages of manual QA are undeniably vast, we wouldn’t be having the discussion over automation testing vs. manual testing if it wasn’t for the immense benefits of using automation QA where it’s appropriate. But how do you choose automated testing over manual testing? Here is when to automate testing to achieve even more efficiency of testing and increase the quality of the product:

  1. When running repeated tests. This is one of the most common arguments in favor of using automation: when the same test case suite is performed every day or multiple times a day, it makes perfect sense to automate test execution and then only make minor changes when needed. For example, automation is perfectly suited for regression testing, which, when it comes to tasks, is one of the most time-consuming in manual testing.
  2. When using performance or load testing. These two types of testing require a lot of time and effort from the QA team, as finding vulnerabilities in the product’s performance can be difficult. Automation testing saves time on testing the performance of a product from different angles.
  3. When there is a large number of test cases. After the QA team has been working on the product for a while, the number of test cases can reach a few thousand or more. Consequently, the manual team risks spending weeks going through the suite while the rest of their work falls behind. This is where automation testing comes to the rescue, as the right test automation frameworks can further accelerate the automation process and increase test coverage to a reasonable degree.
  4. When you need to rule out human error. We have already talked about the human touch being invaluable for the process of testing, but there are also situations where it’s critical to make sure that human error doesn’t skew the results of testing. When implemented correctly, automation QA eliminates that risk.
  5. When dealing with large amounts of data. One of the benefits of automation testing is the ability to process any amount of information faster than the manual tester will ever do. For example, one of the many instances where automation testing is the best possible option is database testing. A well-written test suite can go through millions of entries in far less time than it would take a manual QA to do a fraction of the task.

“Automation testing is much more scalable, and it’s not just about automated regression testing. Manually testing the same scenario using multiple sets of data can take a very long time, whereas automation testing can deal with the entire test suite in a matter of minutes, and then you can execute the test cases whenever you need. This, to me, is one of the biggest differences between manual testing and automation testing.”

Taras Oleksyn, Head of AQA at TestFort

When not to use automation testing

“If you asked me a couple of years ago where automation cannot replace manual testing, I would absolutely name accessibility testing. However, in recent years, there have emerged a few automated tools that can automate accessibility testing to a degree, and that degree is acceptable for most businesses developing software for a general audience. So, with the right test automation tool, you can automate nearly every testing type except for the ones that heavily rely on human perspective.”

Taras Oleksyn, Head of AQA at TestFort

Despite what some may say, and even despite some companies now exclusively having automation testers in their QA departments, it is premature to say that a project can survive on automation QA alone. So can automation replace manual testing? It doesn’t look very likely right now, especially in the following situations:

  1. When you only plan to run tests once or twice. When testing is done on a small, short-term project and running the same tests repeatedly is not in the picture, automation testing does not make a lot of sense.
  2. When there are no predictable results to be achieved. Because automation testing typically involves tests that can either fail or pass, there needs to be a clear understanding of the desired results of testing.
  3. When timing is an issue. Automation testing cannot be done instantaneously. While automation is known to save time for the team in the long run, setting up automated tests takes time that you may not have on a particular project.

“I am convinced that good communication is at the heart of any successful software project. Specifically, thanks to efficient communication, developers will quickly learn not to make unnecessary changes in the code just because they feel like it and thus cause a large volume of tests to fail. For example, a developer can choose to change a lowercase letter to a capital letter where it doesn’t really matter, and a bunch of tests becomes no longer valid. Transparent, effective communication helps eliminate that risk.”

Serhii Belevitnev, Automation QA at TestFort
3 Automation Testing vs. Manual Testing

Manual vs. automation testing: Cost, human resources, time to market, and accessibility for newcomers

There are different ways to compare and distinguish between manual and automation testing. We can look at the things these two methods can achieve and the tools they use. However, some of the most important aspects of the automation testing vs. manual testing debate can be found in a more practical realm. Behind every QA project, whether it’s manual or automated, there are human and material resources. Time to market is also an important metric that needs to be accounted for. Here is a breakdown of those key parameters.


By some estimates, the cost of software testing can account for as much as 60% of the overall cost of a software project. And there is no secret that testing automation costs more money than manual testing at the beginning of the project when it takes high-paid automation QAs and sophisticated tools to set up the automation process.

However, thanks to test reusability and other factors, automation testing also helps save money in the long run. This is why automation tests are particularly appropriate for long-term and large-scale projects, whereas manual testing is best suited for smaller, short-term testing challenges.

Human resources

A skilled and experienced dedicated testing team of manual testers can make a lot of difference in the quality of a software product. Still, although manual testing can help significantly impact the software quality, there is no denying the fact that any manual QA operation requires a significant amount of human resources. As every test case will be created, run, documented, and reviewed by hand, manual testers will always have their plates full, no matter how big the team is.

Automation testing, on the other hand, helps optimize the use of human resources. Sure, automation QAs may be more expensive to hire, but when a single automation QA engineer is doing the work of several manual QAs, it’s definitely a good investment to hire one. This is the difference between automation testing and manual testing, which requires a large team just to keep the project going.

Accessibility for newcomers

As long as the software industry exists, there is going to be a need for software testers. This is a rapidly growing and changing industry that never fails to attract newcomers. And we can say with confidence that manual testing is still the more attractive field for newcomers for one simple reason: the entry threshold for manual QAs is significantly lower than that for automation QAs. Manual QA engineers don’t need deep knowledge of coding or automation frameworks to join the industry and perform testing on an acceptable level.

At the same time, it doesn’t mean that a manual QA is destined to stay in the same position forever. The industry of software testing allows venturing into related fields with relative ease. Plenty of manual testers eventually make the switch to a new field known as automation testing. However, that shouldn’t be viewed as a vertical career move or as an example of evolution in QA. Rather, it’s a lateral move, as both manual and automation testing engineers have the same end goal — they just use different skills and tools to achieve it.

“There are situations where software developers switch to QA automation, and there are situations where engineers become automated testers with no prior experience with QA. However, the best possible outcome result-wise is when a manual QA makes a switch to automation. That way, they already know how testing works and have the right mindset for discovering the bugs, which ultimately makes them good at their job.”

Serhii Belevitnev, Automation QA at TestFort

At the end of the day, both manual testing and automated testing are attractive fields for newcomers, and although they require different mindsets and sets of skills, both of them can be excellent career paths.

“In my experience, a former software developer who is now doing testing automation can often write tests that are more likely to pass, and it’s not always a conscious decision — it’s just a way their brain is conditioned to function after years of creating software designed to work flawlessly. A former manual QA, on the other hand, is more likely to want to get to the root of the problem and locate the bug at the lowest possible level. And that is an approach to testing that delivers the most consistent results.”

Serhii Belevitnev, Automation QA at TestFort

At the end of the day, both manual testing and automated testing are attractive fields for newcomers, and although they require different mindsets and sets of skills, both of them can be excellent career paths.

Time to market

In a time where the competition in the software market is stiffer than ever and there already seems to be a software product for everything, fast time to market can be the one critical advantage the company needs to succeed. This is why this parameter also matters for the manual testing vs. automated testing discussion.

With its reasonable resource use and ability to launch fast, manual testing is a good fit for an application that is in the active development stage. However, because it takes a large group of testers and a long time to cover every aspect of a software product, manual testing doesn’t always positively impact the product’s time to market.

Automation testing is able to generate test results significantly faster than manual testing and can locate more bugs in the same amount of time than manual QA. And given that the same automation test case suite can be run every day and bring relevant results, it can definitely decrease the time to market. At the same time, it’s important to remember the Pesticide Principle paradox — if the test case suite is not regularly reviewed and updated, it can lead to the product only performing well within the limits of the suite.

Do we really have to choose between manual testing or automated testing?

There used to be a time — and a very recent one, in fact — when both software companies and individual QA engineers believed in a rigid distinction between manual and automation testing. Many believed that a manual engineer does not need to be proficient in testing automation, and there were a lot of automation QAs who joined the testing industry with no knowledge of testing whatsoever, only with a possession of coding skills.

Luckily, this attitude has proven to be faulty since then, as it doesn’t take into account the sizable area where those two skill sets come together to form a bigger one that is able to do more in less time and with fewer resources being used.

“Manual and automated testing are not two mutually exclusive concepts. We are witnessing a tendency for the strict division between these two types of testing to gradually disappear. Many companies no longer divide their testing engineers into manual and automation testers. Instead, all of them identify as QA engineers and work together on every single aspect of the testing process.”

Andrii Nikitenko, Head of Operations at TestFort

According to one study, 76% of QA engineers are now somehow involved in automation testing. It means that the line between automation vs. manual testing is even further blurred, and the division is only going to get less noticeable in the upcoming years. Some of the most in-demand testing engineers are going to be professionals who possess both sets of skills and can effectively manage an all-encompassing testing process.

Manual testing vs. automation testing: The ultimate showdown

The automation testing vs. manual testing debate wouldn’t be complete without a detailed look at each type’s benefits and limitations. Here is a comparison of manual and automation testing using the most important criteria in QA.

FeatureManual testingAutomation testing
Done byManual QA engineers and manual testing toolsAutomation QAs with knowledge of code and testing frameworks
TimeCan be launched very quicklyCan take weeks to set up
CostRelatively low, as manual QAs are not paid as much as automation QAs and can use existing equipmentHigh, as automation QAs are more expensive and additional equipment may be needed
ROILow, as manual test cases are not always reusableHigh, as it helps save resources on repeated tests
Programming skills requiredNoYes
RepetitionA manual QA running the same tests time after time can lose focus and miss bugsCan be repeated over and over again with the same efficiency
Human errorProne to human errorNot prone to human error
ReliabilityGenerally reliable when not affected by human errorReliable as long as the test case suite is regularly maintained
Best suited forExploratory testing, Usability testing, Ad-Hoc testing, Functional testing with rapidly changing parametersRegression testing, Performance testing, Load testing, Database testing, API testing
Not suited forLarge volumes of regression and large amounts of dataTesting challenges that heavily rely on human interaction
Automation Testing vs. Manual Testing

Where do we go from here?

Software development is one of the most rapidly transforming industries, and software testing isn’t far behind. Already today, companies actively use advanced technologies to increase the scope and accuracy of their testing efforts. Here are the trends that influence the near future of manual and automated testing:

  • Big data. The more equipped systems are becoming to handle big data and the more big data there is to handle, the use of testing automation makes more and more sense for projects dealing with bulks of information.
  • Machine learning. This technology can significantly shorten the time for a team to get the feedback after rolling out new features: machine learning algorithms analyze thousands of tests, selecting and running only those that are likely to fail.
  • Artificial intelligence. AI is already widely used in automation testing and is going to become an even bigger tool. Just one of the many possible uses of AI in testing is simulating the behavior of real users to save time on manual UI testing.
  • New roles. In addition to the traditional role of an Automation QA, there is now a growing demand for test assistants and test consultants. They take on more managerial duties and are already involved at the business analysis and development stages to launch the software testing process earlier and with more efficiency.

“My prediction is that both automation and manual testing will move in the direction of low-code and no-code testing. Heavier use of AI will also be featured: for example, for test script generation, correction of faulty automation test scripts, as well as analyzing test reports and improving the efficiency of the testing process.”

Taras Oleksyn, Head of AQA at TestFort

Considering all of this, it’s definitely premature to say that software testing as a whole or manual testing as its most important part are going away any time soon. Rather, we can expect the line between automation vs. manual testing to become even more blurred, while QAs who can successfully use manual and automated testing techniques in their work become even in higher demand and earn higher wages.

Bottom line: Can automation replace manual testing?

After everything we’ve said above, one question remains: Does automation replace manual testing?

“The use of manual or automation testing isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. Just like you cannot say that every software project needs to be developed using exclusively Python or JavaScript programming languages, you also cannot say that every project only requires manual or automated testing. There are projects that don’t require QA automation whatsoever, and there are projects where manual testing alone simply won’t cut it. This is why we will carefully analyze the specifics of the project before deciding whether and when to automate testing. However, I can say that a typical project will only benefit from both types being used.”

Andrii Nikitenko, Head of Operations at TestFort

The discussion over when to do automation testing and when to go for manual QA has been around for as long as the software industry has been distinguishing between those two methods of testing. And right now, it looks like there cannot be a universally accepted outcome of this debate. There is a growing number of cases where testing automation can make a world of difference, and there is still a huge need for skilled manual testers. So there is no right or wrong position regarding manual testing vs. automation testing as long as the desired results are achieved in the end.


Is manual QA dying?

Not at all! Most QA experts believe that manual testing engineers will always have a place in the software industry because while AI, machine learning, and other cutting-edge technologies are making big advancements in QA, they will not be successfully able to fully imitate human behavior in the near future.

When to choose automation testing and when — manual testing?

Manual testing is the best option when the team does not expect to run a single test case more than once or twice and when the test case is very dependent on the way real users interact with the product. Automation testing makes the most sense when a large number of tests are going to be run regularly — for example, when performing regression testing.

Can automation replace manual testing?

No, the general consensus among QA engineers is that manual testing is here to stay. Although automation testing has come a long way and is further enhanced by the introduction of modern technologies, such as AI and machine learning, it still cannot fully imitate human behavior where it matters the most. Moreover, there is a big percentage of testing challenges that require the use of both manual and automation techniques. 

How do you transition from manual to automated testing?

When a QA team encounters a challenge that requires the use of automation, the first step is selecting the test cases that need to be automated and choosing the most appropriate framework and tools for automation. However, the introduction of automation testing requires deep QA expertise and relevant automation experience, so if your company wants to get it right on the first try, a more practical approach may be to outsource your testing needs to a company with proven expertise in QA automation.

Hire a team

Let us assemble a dream team of QA specialists just for you. Our model allows you to maximize the efficiency of your team.

Request Specialists
Written by
Inna M., Technical Writer

Inna is a content writer with close to 10 years of experience in creating content for various local and international companies. She is passionate about all things information technology and enjoys making complex concepts easy to understand regardless of the reader’s tech background. In her free time, Inna loves baking, knitting, and taking long walks.

We Work With

Having one outside team deal with every aspect of quality assurance on your software project saves you time and money on creating an in-house QA department. We have dedicated testing engineers with years of experience, and here is what they can help you with.

Software is everywhere around us, and it’s essential for your testing team to be familiar with all the various types and platforms software can come with. In 21+ years, our QA team has tested every type of software there is, and here are some of their specialties.

There are dozens of different types of testing, but it takes a team of experts to know which ones are relevant to your software project and how to include them in the testing strategy the right way. These are just some of the testing types our QA engineers excel in.

The success of a software project depends, among other things, on whether it’s the right fit for the industry it’s in. And that is true not just for the development stage, but also for QA. Different industry have different software requirements, and our team knows all about them.

Icon Manual Testing

Maximum precision and attention to detail for a spotless result.

Icon Testing Automation

We’ll automate thousands of tests for all-encompassing coverage.

Icon Testing Outsourcing

Outsource your testing needs to a team of experts with relevant skills.

Icon Testing Consulting

Overhaul your QA processes to achieve even more testing efficiency.

Icon QA

Thorough Quality Assurance for a project of any scale or complexity.

Icon API Testing

Verify the correct operation of as many APIs as your project needs.

Icon IoT Testing

Stay ahead of the growing Internet of Things market with timely testing.

Icon Web Testing

Reach out to even more customers with a high-quality web application.

Icon Mobile App Testing

Help users fall in love with your mobile app with our texting expertise.


Make sure your CRM/ERP system meets the needs of the stakeholders.

Icon Desktop Application Testing

We’ll check the stability, compatibility, and more of your desktop solution.

Icon Functional Testing

Is your app doing everything it’s supposed to? We’ll help you find out!

Icon Compatibility

Check how your solution works on different devices, platforms, and more.

Icon Usability

Find out if your software solution provides an engaging user experience.

Icon UI

Make sure your application’s UI logic works for all categories of users.

Icon Regression

We’ll verify the integrity of your application after recent code changes.

Icon Online Streaming & Entertainment

Stay on top of the media industry with a technically flawless solution.

Icon eCommerce & Retail

Does your store meet customer needs? We’ll help you know for sure!

Icon HR & Recruiting

Streamline HR processes with a solution that works like a clock

Icon Healthcare

Test the functionality, stability, scalability of your app and more.

Icon Fintech & Banking

Give your users what they want: a powerful, secure fintech product.

We use cookies to ensure your best experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept the use of cookies and "third-party" cookies. For more information or to refuse consent to some cookies, please see our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy