Select Page
Manual Testing

Why Software Developers Still Need To Perform Manual Tests

Being a leading QA Company, we write blogs on all prominent software testing topics and tools using our real-world experience. So stay sharp by subscribing to our Newsletter.

software developers
Listen to this blog

A great safety net for regression testing is automated testing. Some IT professionals treat it as the one-stop solution to all quality assurance, but that should not be the case. QA professionals are still the best, and even the most sophisticated automation suites require human drivers. Here are a few more reasons why developers need manual testers and what you should consider when hiring software testing services.

Plenty Of Tests Need Manual Work

Manual testing is a vital part of QA because of user experience. There is no replacement for first impressions, and although you can automate things like smoke tests, it is still better to leave this to manual testers. Manual tests can also determine if an app is ready for more stringent tests, and humans can check for localization factors like language use in products intended for multiple regions.

Humans Can Find Bugs They Weren’t Looking For 

Testing for specific use cases can yield results like bugs that testers weren’t looking for. At times, testers find things to improve while looking for something else, which is impossible with automated testing. When you automate, you will only get reports on bugs in the parameters you set.

Scripts Need Updating In Agile

Every time a product needs a change to its UI, features, or product flow, it means the automated regression testing script also needs a rewrite. When you’re a small development team or have multiple projects in the pipeline, changes like these are no small consideration. You need to be wise when investing your resources.

Automation Is Not As Affordable

Besides automation software, there are also management and maintenance costs to consider when hiring software testing services. There are also expenses related to rewriting the script, setting up, and processing times. These are perfectly acceptable for long-term projects or ones that involve big products. The return on investment will be worth it. For short or small projects, though, all of these will be impractical.

Automation Tends To Lag Behind Human Test Sprints

It can be challenging to keep automated testing at pace with sprints, and testing outdated fixes are a waste of time. If you plan on automating, you must ensure that you start it early and do not fall behind by more than one sprint. If the development team cannot ensure that happens, it is better to stay with human tests.

Manual Testers Can Provide Insight To UX

Human testers provide more than just knowledge of how the product is performing. They also show you how a human might interact with the end product. A tester helps steer products in directions that benefit the end-user. Exploratory testing helps developers understand what they need to know in the future, and automated tests codify what they must do today.

You Cannot Automate Exploratory Tests

Besides discovering bugs, a developer can also discover large risks and whole use cases through exploratory testing. Upfront strategizing is always valuable, though it is impossible to come up with everything the first time around. Manual testing is a reliable way to catch issues that slip through the first rounds.


Successful testing relies on repetition and variation. Automated tests are great for continual checking, but you need to incorporate variation through human tests. When you combine these two methods, you get the highest chance of covering all bases.

For web application testing, schedule a consultation with Codoid today. We provide software testing services like web service, game testing, mobile app testing, and more. Contact us today for more information!


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Talk to our Experts

Amazing clients who
trust us