Anyone can automate end-to-end tests!
Our AI Test Agent enables anyone who can read and write English to become an automation engineer in less than an hour.
AI is transforming manual software testing at a rapid pace. According to the World Quality Report 2024, 68% of companies are now either actively using Generative AI in testing (34%) or planning full-scale adoption after successful pilots (34%).
Still, QA teams continue to rely on manual testing for functions where AI falls short. Why is that?
Can an algorithm tell when a checkout page feels unintuitive?
Can it evaluate emotional friction in a user journey?
These are decisions that still require human judgment. That’s why, even in 2025, AI and software testing need human testers in the loop. It’s not about replacement—it’s about finding the right fit.
This blog breaks down where manual still wins, where software testing using AI shines, and how platforms like BotGauge help QA teams build hybrid testing strategies.
Let’s start with understanding the current role of manual testing in this shift.
The Role of Manual Testing in 2025’s AI-Driven QA
Manual testing in 2025 focuses on judgment, not repetition. Testers work on areas that need human insight—like confusing flows, unclear messages, or emotional triggers—because these aren’t things AI can measure.
1. Why Manual Testing Isn’t Obsolete
Manual testing helps uncover real issues users face. Testers identify gaps in clarity, accessibility, or behavior patterns. A QA team once flagged an issue where multilingual users misread transaction alerts—AI passed the test, but users didn’t. That’s why testers still have a clear purpose.
2. AI’s Limitations in Subjective Testing
AI works on patterns. It doesn’t understand hesitation, tone, or confusion. Software testing using AI can only verify what it’s been told to expect. Testing emotional impact or clarity in real-world use still needs a human.
Manual testing focuses on areas where AI doesn’t function well. Let’s now look at what AI tools actually offer and where they reach their limit.
Software Testing Using AI: What It Can (and Can’t) Do
AI tools are now a standard part of many QA teams. They offer speed, consistency, and data-backed insights. But their use is limited to tasks that can be clearly defined.
1. AI’s Strengths
AI and software testing tools excel at high-volume, repetitive tasks. They quickly run regression tests, simulate load, and flag known issues. Teams use them to reduce release times and increase test coverage.
Many platforms now generate test cases using user activity logs, helping QA teams automate routine checks faster. According to GitHub’s Octoverse 2024, contributions to generative AI projects grew by 59%, showing a clear shift toward AI adoption across development and testing.
2. AI’s Blind Spots
AI struggles with unclear requirements and unstructured flows. It misses bugs in spontaneous user actions or areas where there is little historical data.
Software testing using AI needs well-documented input to function. New features or unpredictable user paths often go unchecked.
Detailed Table of Software Testing Using AI: What It Can (and Can’t) Do
| No. | Category | Description |
| 1 | Test Automation | AI and software testing tools automate repetitive tasks such as regression testing, helping teams reduce manual effort and save time. |
| 2 | Speed & Efficiency | Software testing using AI accelerates test execution, enabling faster releases and improving consistency across high-volume workflows. |
| 3 | Data-Driven Testing | Tools in ai and software testing analyze real user data to create smarter test cases, supporting better test case design and prioritization. |
| 4 | Coverage Expansion | AI expands test coverage by learning from past failures and identifying risky paths, which helps in detecting edge cases early in the process. |
| 5 | Pattern Analysis | Software testing using AI detects recurring issues, enabling early bug prediction and assisting in test planning and QA process evolution. |
| 6 | Blind Spot: UX Testing | AI misses visual clarity, emotional impact, and intuitive flow—manual testers still lead user experience testing in these areas. |
| 7 | Blind Spot: Unclear Flows | AI cannot understand loosely defined steps or dynamic paths. These need human input, especially during exploratory testing. |
| 8 | Blind Spot: New Features | Without enough training data, ai and software testing platforms fail to validate new modules or unique business flows effectively. |
| 9 | Blind Spot: Exploratory Testing | AI lacks real-time reasoning. It cannot adapt during exploratory testing, which is still led by manual testers. |
| 10 | Blind Spot: Ethical Issues | AI tools do not evaluate tone, bias, or cultural meaning. Manual testing vs AI still favors human judgment in ethical testing practices. |
These gaps highlight why manual testing is still necessary. In the next section, we’ll look at specific situations where human testers provide better results.
Key Scenarios Where Manual Testing Outperforms AI
AI and software testing improves speed and efficiency, but some areas still require human involvement. These are parts of the QA process where context, judgment, and real-world behavior are involved.
Manual testing adds value in these specific use cases.
1. User Experience (UX) Validation
AI tools follow rules, but they don’t understand how a user interacts with a feature. Manual testing allows teams to assess how intuitive a screen feels, how readable the content is, and whether the flow supports natural user behavior. These types of checks are part of effective user experience testing.
2. Ad-Hoc and Exploratory Testing
Some bugs only appear during unscripted or random use. That’s where exploratory testing is useful. Testers use real-time judgment to follow unpredictable paths, often uncovering issues that pre-defined scripts miss. This is a key area in the manual testing vs AI discussion.
3. Ethical and Cultural Compliance
Software testing using AI doesn’t verify tone, sensitivity, or how users from different regions interpret content. Manual testing helps detect bias, unclear messaging, and regional misalignment. These are part of broader ethical testing practices that AI still cannot handle.
Detailed Table of Key Scenarios Where Manual Testing Outperforms AI
| No. | Scenario Category | Description |
| 1 | User Experience (UX) Testing | Manual testing helps evaluate usability, emotional impact, and layout clarity—areas that AI and software testing tools can’t interpret. |
| 2 | Accessibility Reviews | Testers assess how products perform for users with disabilities, which software testing using AI cannot fully verify due to lack of empathy. |
| 3 | Exploratory Testing | Humans explore unplanned flows and discover bugs without pre-written scripts. This is where manual testing vs AI clearly favors testers. |
| 4 | Ad-Hoc Scenario Checks | Spontaneous or on-the-spot testing allows testers to validate edge behaviors. AI tools can’t predict or simulate unstructured test paths. |
| 5 | Edge Case Detection | Manual testers catch rare or unexpected bugs that don’t appear during standard regression testing or predefined test scripts. |
| 6 | Emotional Feedback Evaluation | AI lacks awareness of tone and sentiment. Manual testing identifies how content or design may trigger confusion or dissatisfaction. |
These gaps show why teams are not choosing between manual testing vs AI, but instead combining both. Up next, let’s look at how combining both methods helps QA teams increase quality and speed.
Synergy Between Manual Testing and AI in 2025
Relying fully on AI or sticking only to manual checks limits the value a QA team can deliver. The most efficient teams today combine both methods.
This blend helps them work faster without losing depth. Here’s how AI and software testing teams use both to improve results.
1. AI as a Force Multiplier
Software testing using AI helps reduce workload and speed up repetitive tasks. Testers can shift focus to issues that need judgment and clarity.
Key benefits:
- Runs regression tests in minutes
- Automates routine validations and bug checks
- Highlights patterns for smarter test coverage
- Frees up testers for risk-based and exploratory testing
2. Hybrid Testing Frameworks
A combined setup allows both systems to work based on their strengths. This reduces errors and adds context to results.
Common hybrid methods:
- AI executes large-scale automated tests
- Testers review ambiguous results or high-risk areas
- Teams apply human checks for UX and edge case detection
- Manual validation supports ethical testing practices
This synergy gives better speed and accuracy. But there are still risks when teams rely only on AI tools. Let’s go over those next.
Challenges of Relying Solely on AI in Testing
Teams that use only AI and software testing often face unexpected quality issues. AI tools can automate parts of the QA process, but they cannot replace the full scope of decision-making and analysis.
These limitations affect the overall QA process evolution, especially when human roles are excluded.
1. Overconfidence in Automation
AI systems are trained on patterns. They follow fixed inputs and expected outcomes. When projects change frequently, or when users behave in ways the AI doesn’t recognize, results become unreliable. This is a recurring issue in the manual testing vs AI conversation.
Common risks:
- Missed bugs in flows with variable logic
- False confidence in test coverage during regression testing
- No support for unscripted or exploratory testing
2. High Initial Costs and Complexity
Software testing using AI involves more than tool adoption. It requires setup, training, and ongoing validation. Without experienced QA professionals reviewing the results, it leads to gaps.
Frequent challenges:
- High costs to train AI on custom test data
- Inconsistent output for edge case detection
- Delays in adapting tests to fast-changing releases
Ignoring these risks can also raise concerns around ethical testing practices, especially when user-facing content goes unchecked.
Detailed Table of Challenges of Relying Solely on AI in Testing
| No. | Challenge Area | Description |
| 1 | Missed Edge Cases | AI and software testing tools struggle to detect bugs in dynamic flows or rare scenarios, especially when data is limited or inconsistent. |
| 2 | Regression Blind Spots | During frequent UI changes, software testing using AI may skip validations if test models aren’t updated, risking unnoticed regressions. |
| 3 | Overconfidence in Results | Teams often assume automation means full coverage. In manual testing vs AI, human oversight still catches errors AI tools may overlook. |
| 4 | Weak UX and Sentiment Checks | AI can’t assess emotional tone or design clarity. These subjective elements still require manual testing for accurate user experience testing. |
| 5 | Ethical and Bias Oversights | Software testing using AI doesn’t catch cultural insensitivity or biased content, making ethical testing practices reliant on human review. |
| 6 | Initial Setup Complexity | AI tools need high-quality test data and integration. This slows down adoption for teams unfamiliar with AI and software testing frameworks. |
| 7 | Maintenance Burden | AI models must be retrained as applications evolve. Failing to do so results in flawed outputs and incomplete regression testing. |
| 8 | High Tooling Costs | Many AI and software testing platforms have high licensing or infrastructure costs, making them hard to scale for smaller QA teams. |
Next, let’s see how BotGauge addresses these problems with a hybrid approach that blends low-code automation with strategic tester input.
How BotGauge Replaces Manual Testing Using AI-Driven Automation
BotGauge is one of the few AI testing agents with unique features that set it apart from other AI testing tools. It combines flexibility, automation, and real-time adaptability for teams aiming to simplify QA.
Our autonomous agent has built over a million test cases for clients across multiple industries. The founders of BotGauge bring 10+ years of experience in the software testing industry and have used that expertise to create one of the most advanced AI testing agents available today:
- Natural Language Test Creation – Write plain-English inputs; BotGauge converts them into automated test scripts.
- Self-Healing Capabilities – Automatically updates test cases when your app’s UI or logic changes.
- Full-Stack Test Coverage – From UI to APIs and databases, BotGauge handles complex integrations with ease.
These features not only help with AI testing but also enable high-speed, low-cost software testing with minimal setup or team size.
Explore more BotGauge’s AI-driven testing features → BotGauge
Conclusion
AI tools have changed how teams run tests, but they haven’t replaced everything. Many QA activities still depend on human logic, emotional understanding, and real-time decisions. This makes AI and software testing more effective when teams apply each method based on the task.
Manual testing continues to play a key role in UX evaluation, exploratory testing, and subjective issue detection. At the same time, software testing using AI improves coverage and reduces time spent on high-volume tasks like regression testing.
Platforms like BotGauge make it easier to combine these strengths in a single workflow. QA teams now work faster without missing important product signals.
Balancing automation with manual input helps teams deliver better quality, especially in fast-moving release cycles.
People Also Asked
1. How is AI currently being used in software testing?
AI and software testing tools help automate regression testing, generate test cases, and detect bugs based on user behavior. Software testing using AI reduces repetitive tasks and improves speed. Platforms like BotGauge allow testers to build tests using plain English, saving time and increasing coverage.
2. Can AI replace manual testers entirely?
Full replacement isn’t possible. In the manual testing vs AI discussion, human testers still handle exploratory testing, UX validation, and subjective reviews. AI and software testing tools, including BotGauge, can support these testers but cannot fully judge user emotions, context, or ethical concerns.
3. What are the benefits of integrating AI into testing workflows?
Software testing using AI speeds up regression testing, improves edge case detection, and reduces human error. With ai and software testing, teams can automate repetitive checks and focus on UX and risk-based areas. BotGauge supports this by combining automation with manual review capabilities.
4. What challenges are associated with AI in software testing?
AI and software testing tools often require high-quality data and need regular updates. Software testing using AI may miss complex user behaviors or emotional feedback. Manual testers fill this gap, especially for exploratory testing and ethical reviews. BotGauge reduces this risk through human-in-the-loop test flows.
5. Are there specific tools that utilize AI for software testing?
Yes. Popular ai and software testing tools include Test.ai, Applitools, and Mabl. These platforms automate test creation, visual checks, and regression testing. Software testing using AI helps reduce manual work and increase test accuracy, especially during continuous delivery and agile releases.
4. How does AI contribute to exploratory testing?
Software testing using AI can highlight suspicious patterns and suggest test paths based on data. But for unpredictable flows or emotional friction, human testers still lead. AI and software testing platforms assist by surfacing anomalies, but the actual exploratory decisions are human-driven.
7. What is the impact of AI on the role of QA professionals?
The rise of ai and software testing changes QA roles. Testers now analyze AI results, handle manual testing vs AI workflows, and focus on ethics, usability, and edge case detection. Skills in both AI tools and human-led testing are now part of modern QA.
8. How can teams prepare for integrating AI into their testing processes?
Teams should automate repetitive tasks using software testing using AI and train testers to validate outputs. Start with tools like BotGauge for low-code automation. Use manual testing for UX, ethical checks, and exploratory testing to catch what AI might miss. Balance is key for quality.
