17 Consequences of Not Using Test Automation

In the world of quality assurance, 2 key approaches play a huge role in quality control. They are manual testing and test automation. They both go hand in hand to deliver the best results when it comes to quality assurance, but what would happen if test automation is not used? What would be the consequences? Maybe there are none?

In this blog post, we will delve deeper into the potential consequences of not utilizing test automation in software testing and quality assurance.

What is test automation?

Test automation is the use of software tools to run automated tests, verify results, capture issues, help report found bugs by providing screenshots and data, and handle repetitive tasks with minimal human interaction. 

Test automation typically requires a significant amount of time to develop, specialized knowledge to create and maintain test scripts, and can be costly to implement from the outset, especially for startups or organizations with small and inexperienced teams.

If that is the case, it’s possible to just stick with manual testing, right? Well, not at all.

Manual testing is still an important approach, and it plays a major role when it comes to exploratory testing, uncovering edge cases, or working on smaller, shorter projects. But test automation is also necessary and can't be ignored if you want to keep up with rapid releases and user demand.

Below are 17 reasons why relying only on manual testing is a bad idea. Let’s break them down.

1. Slower test executions 

Since manual testing is really time-consuming, especially when it comes to regression testing, test automation is a quicker and more efficient way to run the same tests rather than doing them manually.

2. Repetitiveness 

Manual testing usually consists of steps that the manual testers have to execute repeatedly across multiple runs. This can lead to the manual testers experiencing fatigue, reduced focus, which can result in costly errors.

3. Human error 

Running manual tests leaves a greater chance of having human errors that can cause serious issues if a blocker bug has slipped through and made its way into production. With automated testing, the human error is slim to none.

4. Difference in knowledge 

If the manual testing team consists of members with different experience levels in manual testing, this can lead to the quality and consistency of test results suffering. Newer members are more prone to overlook something, while the experienced testers approach testing a bit differently, leading to inconsistent results and more time spent reconciling results.

5. Scalability of tests 

Software products constantly evolve, so test cases must be regularly updated to fit the testing needs.. This means that testers sometimes spend more time creating new test cases before testing them in regression runs. This process can lead to a load of test cases that need to be tested in a small time frame.

6. No safety net

When a project involves both manual and automated testing, automated tests are like a safety net that is able to catch any bugs that, for example, a manual tester would have missed. In a manual testing environment, there is no safety net, which can increase pressure on the QA team.

7. Lack of co-browser or device testing

Co-browser and multiple device testing are not feasible with manual testing, especially if there is a time limit. With automated testing, all of this is possible.

8. Missing CI/CD

With automation, it is way simpler to provide continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD), while with manual testing, that is not the case. Automated suites can run quickly and reliably with every code commit, ensuring fast feedback and safe deployments. Without automation, manual testing becomes a bottleneck, making true CI/CD nearly impossible.

9. Loss of customer trust

Manual testing is more prone to human error, which can allow bugs to reach production. When users encounter defects, their confidence in the product and in the QA process can decline, potentially damaging the company’s reputation and customer loyalty.

10. Lack of result history

With manual testing, it's much harder to find the previous runs' result history, especially if they aren’t well-documented. With automation, each run provides data, reports, and images that can be traced to each run.

11. Delayed feedback between developers

With manual testing, developers need to wait a moderate time until they receive feedback regarding a fix, but if the specific scenario is already automated, the response is really quick.

12. Collaboration between teams

Automated tests generate logs, screenshots, videos, and other artifacts that serve as references for debugging. This shared visibility helps developers, QA, and product teams work together more efficiently, reducing miscommunication and speeding up issue resolution.

13. Limited reproducibility

With manual testing, it takes more time to reproduce an issue, especially if there are a lot of preconditions that need to be met. With automated testing, these preconditions and test steps can be run quickly.

14. Lack of API testing

APIs are at the heart of most modern applications, but testing them by hand is slow, repetitive, and easy to get wrong. Without automation, a lot of scenarios can slip through the cracks—especially when releases are frequent or the data flows are complex. That means more backend bugs in production, less confidence that integrations are working properly, and slower feedback for developers.

15. Third-party integrations

Applications today rely on lots of external services, like APIs, payment gateways, or cloud tools. Manual testing often misses issues in these integrations because it’s hard to check everything by hand. Automation makes it easy to continuously monitor these connections, catching problems early before they reach users.

16. Dependency on testers

When all the knowledge about test cases lives in people’s heads, the team becomes dependent on those individuals. If someone leaves or is unavailable, gaps appear, and it can take extra time to reproduce or validate tests. Automated tests capture that knowledge in code, so the team can rely on it consistently, no matter who’s available.

17. Frequent release support

Agile teams push updates constantly, but manual testers can’t keep up with that pace. Running all the tests by hand takes time, slowing down releases and delaying feedback for developers. Automated tests let teams run regressions quickly and repeatedly, keeping the delivery pipeline moving without overloading the QA team.

Best practices for implementing test automation: Tips from a QA engineer

Rolling out test automation isn’t just about picking a tool and writing scripts. It’s a mindset shift. Over the years, I’ve noticed some things that work and some that don’t.

Start small

Don’t feel like you have to automate the whole world right away. Start with a couple of the really important tests, the ones everyone runs all the time, or that take forever by hand, and get those going first. A few quick wins will show the value of automation without overwhelming you.

Focus on what really matters

Automating 100% of your tests sounds nice, but it isn’t realistic. Cover the flows that matter most to your users and business first. Leave edge cases and one-offs to manual or exploratory testing.

Keep your tests clean

Keep your tests tidy. Think of them like real code, not throwaways. Give things clear names, don’t hard-code stuff, and set them up so it’s easy to tweak when your app changes. Your future self (and your teammates) will be very grateful.

Make CI/CD early

Get CI/CD going early. The sooner you plug your tests into a pipeline, the sooner you can stop running them by hand. It keeps things moving, makes the results more trustworthy, and gives you quick feedback whenever someone pushes code or a new release needs to be tested.

Share knowledge

Pull the newer testers into writing and updating tests, and let them bounce around between UI, API, for example, and other parts so they pick up new skills and don’t get stuck in one lane. And make sharing what you know an everyday thing and not a once in a blue moon event.

Keep track of results

Keep results simple and clear so anyone on the team can quickly see what passed and what broke. Throw in logs, screenshots, and even a quick video when something fails. That makes it way easier for everyone to understand what went wrong and fix it fast. Plus, when reports are this 

clear, other people on the team can jump in and see the issues too, instead of waiting for someone to explain them.

Review code consistently

Put your tests in version control, review them like you would application code, and stick to a few basic standards. It keeps things consistent, reduces flaky tests, and makes it easier for new QA folks to jump in and learn from their mistakes and help improve others.

Final thoughts

It’s important to remember that test automation isn’t a magic solution for eliminating all bugs. While automated tests catch many issues consistently, they complement rather than replace manual testing, exploratory testing, and sound development practices. Automation itself requires time, effort, and expertise to develop and maintain. The most effective approach combines both: manual testing excels at exploratory testing and identifying edge cases, while automated tests handle repetitive, high-volume, and regression scenarios efficiently.