EAF vs Manual Testing

  EAF Manual
Tests are created using a predefined process - top down &  logical approach Process is usually non-existent or poorly defined and difficult to enforce. Falls apart over time

Tests are stored in EAF, specifically in a database which in itself provides several benefits Tests are usually created in spreadsheets or other documents that are difficult to manage

Simultaneous collaboration with multiple users is possible speeding up the process and providing oversight Difficult to collaborate or share test documents
Wiring test cases to application is a one time step and will reveal any defects in design or function N/A
Tests are easily executed by a click. Entire test suites spanning several tests can be run with a single click Every Test Execution and every step in every test is completed manually, therefore test effort is constrained by staff availability

Quality of Test Execution in EAF Tester is superior to Manual Testing as there is no human input during test execution Chances of bad or incorrect tests due to operator errors are high

Test Coverage of entire application or multiple areas in EAF Tester is possible because execution is automated Ability to test entire application thoroughly may be difficult due to staff availability

Variations to account for data, environmental (OS type and OS version, Browser type and version) are easily added during development and can be executed by a simple click Every variation whether data or environment (OS, browser) or environment version requires an additional equal level of effort

EAF Tester captures results and associated data during test execution Recording results are difficult as well as slow since capturing data and output is a manual effort

Results are easily reviewed from within EAF Tester. Every execution output remains available Reviewing results is tedious and subsequent follow up (bug fixes, for example) is even more so

Auditing of results in EAF Tester is possible at any time. Test Executions are preserved even as the Tests themselves change along with application related changes Ability to audit past test executions requires significant manual effort

Regression or retesting in EAF Tester is easily done with a few mouse clicks Every retest costs the same in terms of human effort
As the application evolves, managing changes to test cases is easy in EAF Tester Updating test cases stored in spreadsheets or other documents is time consuming and error prone

Managing multiple versions of Tests to support multiple version of application releases is easily supported in EAF Tester Having to manually manage one or more versions of test artifacts requires dedicated effort