QA automation services that your team will actually keep running
Selenium and Playwright test suites that run in your pipeline and do not need rewriting every sprint.
QA automation means writing tests as code so they run automatically on every change and catch problems before users do. AMT (Advanced Millennium Technologies) builds test automation suites in Selenium and Playwright, connected to your existing CI pipeline, alongside manual and exploratory testing where a person is the better tool.
// suites_abandoned
Why most test automation suites get abandoned
A big, thorough suite gets built and everyone is pleased. Six months later it fails on every run for reasons nobody has time to investigate, so people start ignoring the red. Eventually it is switched off in CI and left in the repository like a monument.
That is almost never a tooling problem. It is a selection problem. Too much was automated, including things that change constantly and things that were never worth the upkeep.
// automation_pyramid
The test automation pyramid
| Layer | How many tests | What they check |
|---|---|---|
| Unit tests | Many | Calculations and business rules in code. Fast, cheap and reliable. |
| API and contract tests | Some | That services and integrations still agree with each other. |
| UI end-to-end tests | Few | The core journeys a user must always be able to complete. |
Most suites that break all the time are upside down: lots of UI tests, few unit tests. Flipping the pyramid is usually the fastest fix.
// what_to_automate
What to automate, and what to leave alone
| Test type | Automate? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Core business flows (login, checkout, the thing your product exists to do) | Always | High value, rarely changes, breaks loudly. |
| Regression on stable features | Yes | This is what automation is for. |
| Calculations and business rules | Yes, at unit level | The cheapest and most reliable tests you will ever write. |
| API contracts | Yes | Fast, stable, and they catch integration breakage before the UI does. |
| Anything still being designed | No | You will fix the test more often than you run it. |
| Visual appearance | Rarely | Brittle and full of false alarms. |
| Exploratory and usability testing | Never | Only a person finds what you did not think of. |
| Rare edge cases | Usually not | If it runs twice a year, a checklist is cheaper. |
Get the automation selection test
What to automate, what to leave to a person, and the payback question to ask before writing any test. One page. It will probably stop you automating something.
// selenium_vs_playwright
Selenium vs Playwright: which should you use?
| Factor | Playwright | Selenium |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Released by Microsoft in 2020 | Open source since 2004, now a W3C WebDriver standard |
| Languages | JavaScript and TypeScript, Python, Java, .NET | Java, Python, C#, Ruby, JavaScript |
| Waiting for pages | Built-in auto-waiting, so fewer flaky tests | Explicit waits you write and maintain |
| Ecosystem | Newer, growing fast | The widest ecosystem and the most existing suites |
| Our advice | Usually the easier life for new suites | Keep it if your existing suite works |
If you have a large Selenium suite that works, migrating it for its own sake rarely pays back, and we will tell you that instead of quoting for the migration.
// qa_services
Our QA and test automation services
| Service | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Test automation suites | Selenium or Playwright, built around the selection test above. |
| CI integration | Tests run on every change, with results people actually look at. |
| API and contract testing | Faster and more stable than testing the same thing through the UI. |
| Performance testing | Against the traffic you actually expect. |
| Manual and exploratory testing | Where a person is the right tool. |
| Test strategy | Deciding what to test where, the work that makes everything else pay back. |
// proof
Proof
Playwright automation for an enterprise software provider. A reusable Playwright framework in TypeScript, built on the Page Object Model, covering smoke, regression and end-to-end tests across Chromium, Firefox and WebKit. Tests run in parallel inside the CI/CD pipeline (Jenkins or GitHub Actions) with quality gates before each release, and every result links back to its test case in Zephyr and its defect in Jira, so each failure traces to a requirement.
// cost_and_payback
Test automation cost and payback
An automated test costs roughly three to five times a manual run to create. After that, each run costs almost nothing, but every change to the feature costs something to update. So automation pays back on tests that run many times against features that rarely change.
| Scope | Pricing model | What drives the effort |
|---|---|---|
| Test strategy and suite audit | Fixed price | Size of the current suite and release process. |
| Building and running automation | Monthly or scoped | Number of core flows, integrations and environments. |
| Typical budget range | 20 to 30 USD per hour | Automation engineers at the higher end, manual and exploratory testing at the lower end. |
// not_right_fit
When we are not the right fit
// faqs
FAQs: QA automation services
Is Playwright better than Selenium?
What is the test automation pyramid?
How much test coverage do we need?
What should we automate first?
Why do our automated tests keep breaking?
When does test automation pay back?
Do we still need manual testers?
Tell us what keeps breaking
30 minutes with an engineer. Describe your release process and what goes wrong, and we will tell you what is worth automating and what is not.
Not ready to talk? Read how we deliver. No form.