Why Manual Testing Is Important — Benefits Of Manual Testing

In a world filled with trends, I would like to stay Classic -Manual Testing

ByNiharika Khandelwal
September 21st . 5 min read
Why Manual Testing Is Important — Benefits Of Manual Testing

Manual testing, as the name suggests, is the method of executing the test cases and differentiating the actual results to the expected results. Test cases are executed manually by a human eye without any support from tools or scripts.

It is done to find bugs in software under development. It is a classical method of all testing types and helps find bugs in software products.

Human Brain is Irreplaceable

Wonders can happen when the human brain is at work.


Only a human can create valid test designs, foresee defects, and execute designs to get the expected result. Human testers will quickly detect when something looks “Off” and can anticipate other failures that sometimes go unnoticed during automation testing. There is no replacement for the human eye.

User Experience

It is not possible to do the UX/UI testing through automation. A manual tester can spot contextual, functional, visual, and usability bugs that automation scripts may not identify.


For example, the automated tools can’t test for visual considerations like gestures, image color or font size. Testing functionalities like gestures, tap, shake, CAPTCHA, and video control-based trigger actions using automated scripts still need a lot of effort and time.

Not All Domains Prefer Automation

There are still some domains that prefer Manual testing over Automation testing for most of the system functionality.

The BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance) domain is the biggest user of IT services. Banking Applications directly deal with highly confidential financial data. It is obligatory that all the testing activities performed by banking software run smoothly and without any error.


You cannot cover everything by Automation such as:

  • Total coverage of all banking workflows and Business Requirements
  • The functional aspect of the application
  • The security aspect of the application
  • Data Integrity
  • Concurrency

Un-Automatable Scenarios

Several times, situations arise when there are runtime variations in the functionality of some components either as an enhancement or behavioral change. In this case, the time and knowledge of functionality play a major role.

Now before starting the automated testing, the tester has to set up test cases, program it into the automated tool, and then run the tests. But with manual testing, the QA can quickly test and see the results. Automatic tests take more time as we require the new automation script to run those tests, which definitely will be time-consuming.


Recently came around one application where the client needs to verify the tap-and-pay function for their mobile wallet app. Developing a way to automate this scenario is not worth it and not possible but when compared to manual testing this can be done easily.

Testing Perspectives

Negative testing can be done more rigorously via manual testing. If an automation test fails, you will get to know only about the result of the failed test cases and could not perform a workaround to test other areas even if one thing fails.

In such scenarios, only manual testing can be performed. Defects found through Ad hoc testing are typically the results of testing complicated cases that might not have been addressed through your predefined automated test cases.

Mobile Application Testing


In Mobile Application Testing Device, compatibility and interactions can’t be covered with automated scripts. Things like leaving and re-entering wi-fi, simultaneously running other apps, device permissions, and receiving calls and texts can all potentially wreak havoc on the performance of an app.

Changing swipe directions from left to right and the number of fingers used for tapping on the phone can also affect mobile apps. Clearly you need a manual tester to address a little touchy-feely if you want your app to have the minimum number of freak-outs. In such scenarios, Automation testing is not worthy enough to spend time on it.

Bottom Line

To optimize the price and time needed to test any software, you cannot entirely rely upon the automation testing approach. You need the right combination of manual testing and automation testing to get error-free software.

Hope you found this blog useful. In case of any query or suggestion, drop them in the comment section. Thanks!