Manual Testing vs Automated Testing: What’s the Difference?

There are two main approaches to testing: manual and automated. Fully understanding these methods and how they complement each other is essential for building a solid QA strategy and making quality and efficiency improvements in your organization. 

In this article, we’ll define both approaches, compare them side-by-side, and provide examples and insights on when to use each.

Skip ahead to:

What is manual testing?

Manual testing is a process that involves manually executing test cases without the help of any automation tools. It’s the good old-fashioned way. The tester checks whether the application behaves as expected by simulating certain user journeys and then analyzes the results.

The main characteristics of manual testing include:

• Human involvement: The tester performs all actions manually.
• Flexibility: Allows for ad-hoc and exploratory testing.
• Time-consuming: Requires significant time and resources. It is difficult to scale.

What is automated testing?

Automated testing or test automation involves using tools and frameworks to perform tests on the software automatically. This approach is particularly useful for repetitive tasks like regression testing and tests that require precision and speed.

The main characteristics of automated testing include:

• Tool-based execution: Tests are executed using automation tools or scripts.
• Consistency: Tests are performed the same way every time, ensuring consistent results.
• Efficiency: Ideal for running large volumes of tests quickly and repeatedly. Its repeatable nature makes it easier to scale.

Key differences between manual and automated testing

Each method has distinct characteristics that make it suitable for different scenarios.

The table below highlights the main differences, covering aspects like execution, speed, flexibility, consistency, setup, scalability, and cost.

How to manually test: an example of a manual test case

To better understand how manual testing works, let’s explore a practical example.

Imagine you're a tester tasked with verifying the login functionality of an application.

You would need a step-by-step test case to ensure users can successfully log in and access the dashboard. Here's how you would manually test this feature.

Manual Testing Outcome: Based on the test, the QA tester can document whether the login functionality works as expected or if any issues need addressing.

How to automate testing using code and no-code approaches

When considering automation, you generally have two main options: code-based tools like Selenium or no-code platforms like Leapwork.

Code-based automation (using Selenium) example

Selenium is an open-source framework for automating tests on web applications. It allows testers to write scripts in various programming languages, such as Java, Python, or C#.

Here’s a basic example of a Selenium webdriver test script in Python. The script below automates the login process and checks whether the user is redirected to the dashboard.

Related reading: Everything You Need To Know About Selenium

No-code automation (using Leapwork) example

Leapwork is a no-code test automation platform that allows testers to create automation flows without writing any code. Instead of scripting, testers interact with a visual interface to design tests. This makes the platform accessible to both technical and non-technical users.

You can use the intuitive canvas in the visual interface to easily design your automation flow. 

Each interaction with your application is represented by a customized building block. For instance, there’s a block dedicated to opening a web browser, entering your username and password, and extracting text from an element. Simply drag and drop blocks to build your flow.

Alternatively, you can use the built-in recorder to capture your actions as you go through the process manually. Leapwork will convert this recording into an automation flow, making the process seamless and user-friendly.

Automating a basic login test using Leapwork

While free code-based options like Selenium are popular, you’ll always need a skilled team of developers on hand to manage and maintain the tool, which incurs high costs.

No-code platforms offer a better long-term solution. Although the initial investment may be higher, they provide a better ROI over time by reducing the reliance on developers, simplifying the automation process, and making it easier to scale your testing efforts.

Related reading: How to Calculate the ROI of Test Automation: A Practical Guide

Pros and cons of manual and automated testing

Before you decide whether to use manual or automated testing, it's good to be aware of the pros and cons of each approach.

Below, we outline the key advantages and disadvantages of these testing methods side-by-side to help you make an informed decision.

When to use manual vs automated testing

When choosing between manual testing and test automation, it's important to consider the scope of the project, your resources, and what makes sense to apply to certain testing scenarios.

Here are some key considerations.

Project size: For big projects like continuously testing ERP or CRM applications, automation is the way to go. As the regression suite grows, manual testing can quickly lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and operational risks due to delays and errors.. Automation helps you manage a large volume of tests more efficiently, covering all aspects of the project without overloading your QA team.

Test frequency: If you have features that need frequent testing, automation is a critical asset. It excels in situations where tests need to be run repeatedly, like regression tests with every new build or software update. Automating these tasks saves time and ensures consistency, reducing the risk of human error.

Resource availability: While automation offers clear benefits for large-scale projects and frequent testing, it's also important to consider the resources required to implement it. Initially, automation may demand an investment in tools and development expertise. However, no-code automation tools can ease this burden by enabling testers and business stakeholders to create and manage automated tests. This reduces reliance on developers, allows more team members to contribute to the process, and shortens the learning curve, making automation more accessible and cost-effective in the long run.

Related reading: How to Build a Business Case for Test Automation

Scenarios suited to automated testing

Automated testing is the go-to choice when speed, efficiency, and consistency are key. Here are situations where automated testing is most effective:

Data-driven testing: Automated testing excels when you need to run the same test with multiple sets of data, ensuring consistency and reducing the time needed to test different inputs. Therefore, it’s well-suited to data-driven testing.

Regression testing: When you need to run the same tests repeatedly, automated testing ensures that each run is consistent and error-free, especially after code changes.

End-to-end testing: Automated end-to-end testing ensures that all components of an application work together as expected, especially in large or complex systems. This is very time-consuming if done manually.

Scenarios suited to manual testing

Manual testing is ideal when flexibility and human insight are crucial. Here are some scenarios where manual testing excels:

Exploratory testing: When you need to explore and understand how a new feature or application behaves, manual testing allows you to uncover unexpected issues that automated scripts might miss.

Usability testing: Manual testing is often the way to go if you’re assessing how user-friendly an application is. It lets testers experience the application as a user would, ensuring tasks like navigating a menu or using a chat box are smooth and error-free.

Low-volume testing: When you only need to run a test once or twice, such as for a quick hotfix, manual testing is more practical and saves the time required to set up automated tools.

Conclusion

Manual and automated testing each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

While manual testing is ideal for exploratory work, automated testing provides efficiency and scalability, making it well-suited to repetitive and complex testing tasks.

The key is to use a combination of both approaches and draw from the strengths of each approach in specific scenarios. By understanding when to apply them, you can optimize your testing strategy and improve your software quality and operational efficiency.