Is automated testing worth it?

Yes, automated testing is worth it when combined with manual (user behaviour) testing and using codeless/low code tools.

Imagine you're riding a bike downhill at full speed. It's thrilling, the wind whooshing past, your heart racing. But you've forgotten your helmet at home. Now, the downhill ride becomes a balancing act, between the thrill and the lurking danger. That's like diving headfirst into software development without automated testing. It might seem exciting at first, but you're missing a protective layer.

Automated testing provides consistency and repeatability, making it an invaluable tool in a software quality assurance toolkit. Just as the helmet protects a cyclist from potential dangers, automated tests protect software projects from unintentional regressions and bugs. Automated tests can run through a set of instructions rapidly, ensuring that the system behaves as expected. This allows for faster feedback and helps teams maintain a certain level of code quality over time.

However, solely relying on automated testing can be akin to riding a bike in unfamiliar territory. You might be protected by your helmet (your automated tests), but you might not foresee the bumps or sharp turns (unexpected user behaviour). Manual testers, as "user behaviour testers", provide insight into real-world user interactions and understand the intricacies of the human experience. By combining manual testing's depth with automated testing's breadth, one ensures a well-rounded approach. Additionally, introducing codeless or low code automation can enhance the testing process, speeding up test creation without the intricacies of writing code.