Automated testing and functional testing are both essential aspects while performing software testing. Each of these testing techniques has specific benefits and scenarios.
Combining both of them can enhance the quality and efficiency of testing and can reduce testing costs. In this article, we will discuss both testing techniques in detail, their uses, weaknesses, and strengths. There are many differences between them, which can help you to compare and understand them quickly.
Your software development partner will provide you with software testing and development services, as testing is a part of SDLC itself.
Let’s dive in, and understand more!
An Automated testing approach is used to perform a qualitative analysis of the system. In this process, a software system is validated whether it fulfills the needs or not by using different automated tools.
In this approach, a script is made to check the app developed by the team of developers. Various environments are used, and the functions of the app are verified.
For performing automated testing, software testers use numerous software testing tools to check the productivity and performance of any specific project. By using automated testing, manual testing efforts have been reduced a lot.
There was a time when the testing process only revolved around manual testing processes. Manual testing takes too much time; in the end, it is not assured that the product is as accurate as tested by automated tools.
In modern times, automated testing has acquired the testing process, and any app or software doesn’t get the required approval without passing through the automated testing process.
The functional testing approach is a testing type that verifies if each function of the app runs as per the requirements. This testing type involves only black-box testing and isn’t concerned with the app’s source code. Each function in the system is tested by using a different set of inputs and checking whether the output matches the expected consequences.
There’s also a situation- Automated Functional Testing is a process that uses particular code to execute test cases automatically. There are different tools to perform automated functional testing that make the testing process easier.
Now, let’s discuss the pros and cons of functional testing.
Let’s compare Automated vs. Functional testing to know which will be more useful for your project advancements.
Now, they have understood the importance, definition, and everything regarding functional testing and automated testing. Here’s the whole comparison table for understanding the differentiating factors:
While using functional time, the process is unnecessary and takes more time. In contrast, the processing time is faster while using automated testing.
Continuous product delivery is possible while using the continuous delivery pipeline. Whereas, automated testing is reliable as tools and scripts perform test cases.
Functional testing is comparatively less cost-effective when used for high-volume regression. Automated testing is more cost-effective for the same quality of work.
Functional testing is needed for both functional testing tools as well as human resources. In comparison, investment is used for automation tools and automation engineers.
From the day when software development began till today, testing the software is essential to ensure that it works as per the requirements. Picking the right strategy is necessary for a successful testing process. Both automation and functional testing have pros and cons; picking one of them needs understanding of your project’s testing requirements.
In the above article, you will see highlighted definitions of automated and functional testing, along with their advantages and risks.
We have also included primary comparison factors of Automated vs Functional testing in this article. We hope that this information will help you pick the most suitable testing approach for your project testing.
Stay tuned with us for such informative posts. Happy reading!
Disclaimer: The author is completely responsible for the content of this article. The opinions expressed are their own and do not represent IEEE's position nor that of the Computer Society nor its Leadership.