Skip to content
Home » Why manual testing in QA is still important?

Why manual testing in QA is still important?

manual testing in QA

Testing is one of the most critical elements in developing any software. It allows you to identify any errors that may lead to problems with the site’s operation, application, or program. Today there are 2 main types of testing: manual and automated. Each of them has its characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. There is an opinion that manual testing has become obsolete, but practice shows that this is not so.

What is manual testing?

Manual testing is a way of checking software when a person looks at the finished result and proofreads the code without using various applications and tools.

Modern website manual testing is pretty diverse. Often they are aimed at identifying errors in UX/UI, API, and other points. The thing is that automatic testing methods cannot yet modulate human behavior. So, if a site or mobile application has an inconvenient and ugly interface, all the functions here work correctly. No automated testing tool will be able to find the problem.

The main advantage of manual testing is understanding how potential users will see the product and understand how comfortable it will be for them to use it.

Why manual testing in QA is still important

When is manual testing used?

Manual testing can be used when creating any software. Sometimes it is used as a standalone type of testing, sometimes in combination with automatic testing. The second option is the ideal solution because it allows you to simultaneously check the capabilities of the system and the user interface. The main disadvantage of this method is the high cost. If large corporations can afford to include 50% of the project cost for testing, most small projects, including startups, cannot pay for such expensive services.

Benefits of startup outsourcing and manual testing include:

  • Low cost of services;
  • Allows you to identify apparent errors;
  • Sufficiently high testing speed;
  • A quality product enters the market.

As already mentioned, automated testing is quite expensive. After the product has been tested, the programmer is obliged to make changes and fix the identified errors. After that, the tester must again double-check the program code to understand whether the changes have been made correctly. Manual testing is often used in this case, as it is cheaper and takes very little time.

So, to summarize all of the above, manual testing is used if:

  • Need to save money;
  • There is a need to check the UI;
  • Test code manually faster;
  • You need to check the correctness of the bug fixes made in the past testing.

Of course, manual testing cannot profoundly analyze the code or assess its resistance to hacks or performance. Still, it allows you to understand how convenient it will be for an ordinary person to use the product and identify obvious errors, such as broken buttons. It is a good solution for those who, despite the small budget, want to get a quality product.

Why is manual testing still relevant?

Of course, manual verification cannot do all the necessary volume testing. However, it can be quite helpful in various situations. There are many reasons why manual testing is still relevant today. We propose to consider the most important of them.

Automated testing cannot mimic human behavior

When you create software, you hope that people will like it and enjoy using it. It can be achieved only if your product has a convenient, beautiful, and understandable interface, all functions work as they should, and there are no unexpected failures. Manual testing allows you to identify errors visible to the average user. Their presence can lead to a loss of reputation.

Why manual testing in QA is still important

Some errors are unpredictable

The specialist manually prescribes the criteria that matter most by doing automated testing. Some errors are unpredictable, so identifying them can be extremely difficult.

Manual testing is cheaper

The cost of testing plays a massive role in small projects. Due to the limited budget, they must look for ways to save money without sacrificing quality. In this case, manual testing is widely used. It allows you to identify various errors. The fact is that for small startups, the size of the code will enable you to subtract this in a short time and reveal apparent mistakes.

There may be errors in automated testing scripts

Some people think that automatic testing is devoid of errors, but this is not true. The matter is that the script under each separate project registers separately. In this case, the specialist can make various mistakes, which negatively affect testing quality.


Of course, using precisely manual testing, you are unlikely to be able to identify absolutely all errors. But, it is pretty effective for checking the user interface, small projects, and the system’s health. In an ideal world, the optimal solution would be to use both types of testing. But if there is a need to save money, then manual testing is very effective.