Manual vs. automated testing: Pros, cons, and when to use each (How to choose the right testing method for your team)

Manual testing gives you flexibility. Automation gives you speed. This guide breaks down the pros and cons of each method—so you can choose the right approach for your team (or mix them smartly).

Manual vs. automated testing: Pros, cons, and when to Use Each

Your app is almost ready to launch. QA has tested it thoroughly—manually and using automation scripts. But there’s still a question in the air:
Should we automate more, or keep some tests manual?

It’s one of the most common challenges in software testing. The balance between manual vs. automated testing can be tricky, but knowing when to use each method is key to building better products, faster.

In this article, we’ll walk through the manual QA pros and cons, explore some popular automated testing tools, and help you decide which approach fits your project—and when it makes sense to combine both.

What is manual testing?

Manual testing means running test cases without automation. A human tester clicks through the app, simulates user behaviour, and identifies issues.

It’s best for:

  • Exploratory testing
  • User interface (UI) validation
  • Early-stage features with frequent changes
  • Edge cases that automation might miss

Manual QA pros and cons

✅ Pros:

  • Flexible: Testers can follow intuition, adapt in real time, and catch subtle UI/UX issues
  • Quick to start: No scripting required
  • Great for early-stage or high-change products

❌ Cons:

  • Time-consuming: Repeating the same tasks gets inefficient
  • Inconsistent: Tester-to-tester variation can affect results
  • Doesn’t scale well: For large apps or regular regression testing, it falls short

Understanding these manual QA pros and cons is critical when planning your testing strategy—especially if speed and scale matter.

What Is automated testing?

Automated testing uses scripts and software to run predefined tests. These scripts can check key features across builds and environments automatically.

It’s great for:

  • Regression testing
  • Performance/load testing
  • CI/CD integration
  • Validating large, stable areas of the codebase

Automated testing tools: What to know

If you're considering automation, here are some popular automated testing tools:

  • Selenium – Flexible, open-source browser automation
  • Cypress – Fast, reliable, and ideal for frontend web apps
  • Appium – Mobile automation for iOS and Android
  • Playwright, TestCafe, Puppeteer – Modern frameworks with growing popularity

Each of these tools can accelerate your testing—but they still require ongoing setup, updates, and learning curves.

‍Manual vs. automated testing: When to use each?

Here’s a breakdown of when each approach shines:

Scenario - New feature under development | Best Method - Manual Testing

Scenario - Stable feature, regression testing | Best Method - Automated Testing

Scenario - Validating user experience | Best Method - Manual Testing

Scenario - Repeating tests across environments | Best Method - Automated Testing

Scenario - MVP with limited resources | Best Method - Manual Testing

Scenario - Large-scale production release | Best Method - Automated Testing

For most teams, a hybrid strategy works best: manual for exploration, automation for scale.

How re:bug complements both testing methods

No matter which method you use, bugs still need to be reported—and that’s where re:bug comes in.

During manual QA, re:bug helps you:

  • Take annotated screenshots
  • Add numbered steps
  • Include all environment details
  • Send it directly to Jira or your bug tracker

With automated testing tools, re:bug still has a place:
When automation surfaces a UI bug or test fails unexpectedly, your team can quickly reproduce and report it with all the context developers need.

Either way, re:bug ensures your reporting stays consistent, clear, and fast—so your team can focus on fixing, not guessing.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between manual vs. automated testing isn’t about picking sides—it’s about picking the right tool for the job.
Manual QA gives you flexibility and human insight. Automation gives you speed and scale. Together, they cover your bases.

And when it comes to reporting the bugs you find along the way—re:bug makes it seamless, regardless of the testing method.
So whether you're clicking through a new UI or running thousands of tests overnight—your reports stay sharp, structured, and ready to go.