It’s not about "this or that", but understanding where each create the most value. While there are many factors in question, let me touch some aspects that often fly off the radar: Yes, automation is crucial for repetitive tasks and catching predictable issues early - but “predictable” is the key here. Tests are designed to cover what we can foresee, not unexpected surprises. Also, scalability is another kicker—big applications take big time to test, and automation drastically reduces this. That said, 100% automation is a myth. Manual testing taps into human intuition and cognition, allowing us to explore, analyze, and uncover issues beyond predefined expectations. Both have to go hand-in-hand to ensure high-quality and efficient testing.

It's the battle between human and machine, as to which is fit for purpose. Neither process is better than the other. But so many workplaces are now tipping the balance in favour of automation as a catch all, and it's a dangerous bridge to cross. For the right balance we need to establish what we are testing and why. The human tester has the capability to act for our customers and use those cognitive skills, emotional intelligence and on the spot decision making. We can explore, find, question and explain. The machines can run the repetitive, regression tests. Ultimately though, however we balance the scales, the business is always going to choose the route that saves the most time and money (albeit a short term fix).

Context is a must when a question like this is asked. An analysis should be done for every testing activity and once that's done a decision can be made whether to engage a tool(s) to assist you with the execution of your tests. A true balance can never be achieved. You should always do what makes sense depending on the context. Also there is nothing "manual" about testing and testing cannot be automated.

Balancing automated and manual testing doesn’t have to be a struggle when you understand what each approach is best suited for. The key is to identify tasks that clearly benefit from automation and those that require the human touch. For instance, load testing; trying to simulate thousands of users, is obviously something you’d want automated. No need to do that manually! However, edge cases, UI/UX issues, and subtle inconsistencies are where manual testing really shines. Catching those requires the intuition and attention to detail that automation tools don’t quite replicate. So, instead of seeing it as a struggle, it’s about leveraging both to ensure quality across the board.

Balancing automated and manual testing is crucial to ensure quality. To achieve this, start by automating repetitive and time-consuming tests, such as regression testing, while reserving manual testing for exploratory and usability tests. Prioritize creating robust test scripts for high-risk areas in automation, and conduct regular reviews to maintain their effectiveness. Additionally, ensure strong collaboration between testers and developers, using metrics to monitor coverage and adjust your strategy when necessary.

You don't balance. You do manual (test case creation that ensure full coverage). After that is done, you do automation if you can. Doing automation first is putting the cart before the horse and bringing it up for discussion puzzles me.

Automate only where necessary. - Repetitive & Regression testing are required - Test flow is quite straightforward - Does not include functionalities which can't be or are impossible to automate eg-GMail, Captcha, SMS, etc To take care automation does not make quality suffer, do manual testing there like, - Where lot of calculation is required on different stages - Sensitive parts which may disturb the entire AUT due to lethargic automation coding - In case the flow is very complex & takes time to do automation - To evaluate the application’s usability & user experience To ensure quality, - Judge the AUT to decide if you can automate or not OR whether automation will save or eat time & energy - monitor test results in both ways of testing

To balance automated and manual testing effectively, start by evaluating which test cases are best suited for automation typically those that are repetitive, high-volume, or critical for continuous integration. Use manual testing for scenarios that require human judgment, exploratory testing, or are less predictable. Regularly review and update your automated tests to ensure they remain relevant and effective. By strategically combining both approaches, you can maintain high quality without overburdening your team or compromising test coverage. This balance helps ensure that each testing method complements the other, leading to thorough and efficient quality assurance.