2 Top QA Manual Testing Challenges

Owen Savage

Automation Expert

An over reliance on manual testing combined with insufficient investment in test automation is presenting a huge challenge in QA. It leads to a lack of efficiency and more risk, where software bugs and outages become more likely.

Manual testing

One of the challenges in QA is the reliance on manual testing. According to Capgemini’s 2021/22 report, an average of 15-20% of tests are being automated. 

Manual testing presents a challenge when performing QA testing because it is more time consuming. It’s also more prone to error. 

Leapwork’s 2022 Risk Radar Report found that around 4 in 10 CEOs in the US and Britain cited the over reliance on manual testing as the main reason for improperly tested software. 




When you test manually, you’re going to be more tempted to skip certain steps in the testing process. 

That leads to poorer quality software, taking more risks and a higher chance of outages. 

It leads to a culture of patch testing after software is released, instead of integrating end-to-end testing into an automated testing process. 

Read more: What is the Difference Between Manual Testing and Automation Testing?

Underinvestment in test automation 

The Capgemini World Quality Report 2021-22, emphasizes the need to automate software testing processes. At the moment, a lack of investment in test automation means that test automation is not being used to its full potential. 

Although Leapwork’s 22 Risk Radar Report showed both a move toward automation and a desire to automate among QA stakeholders, in reality that desire isn’t being met. 

Software is being released to market without proper testing and underinvestment in test automation is causing that to be the case. 

Read more: Why No-Code Test Automation Has the Best ROI.

So how could test automation be better invested in and used to its full potential? 

Leapwork is a tool that can help you automate testing without the need for developer resources. It uses visual building blocks to allow non-coders to engage in the testing process. 

Just have a look at this Leapwork test flow. 


A no-code alternative isn’t only more efficient, less error prone, and more scalable, it facilitates testing across devices and platforms. 

Including testers who cannot code in the testing process allows those with more idea of your business needs to have more influence over testing and bridges the gap between teams in QA. QA will always involve some manual testing, but automating the repetitive tests using no-code approaches will allow your team to focus on what really matters.

This is how you can start to fulfil the potential of test automation. 

New call-to-action