In testing, we often talk about the “balance between manual and automated testing,” but this is a misleading way to think about it. Testing is not about dividing work into manual or automated. It is a process of exploring and verifying the product.

When faced with a certain task, the focus should not be on “balance,” but instead on which tools and approaches are best suited to accomplish that task.

Manual testing is indispensable, as manual test cases serve as the foundation for future automation. Manual testing revolves around the aspects that automated testing can't cover. These include visual application checks and the ability to test specific user experience-based scenarios that are impractical to automate. On the other hand, automated testing has its advantages. It eliminates the human factor, allows you to use the same scenarios repeatedly, and is much faster than manual testing.

Moreover, manual testing experience is invaluable for automation testers. Understanding the app from a user's perspective helps automation testers write better scripts and prioritize what to automate.

However, this is not a question of balance, but of effectiveness in choosing the right approach for the current product needs.

For example, when you go to the store, you don’t think about “balancing walking and biking.” Instead, you consider whether the bike will save time or effort, whether you’re in a hurry, or if it’s more convenient to carry your groceries by bike. You simply choose the option that best accomplishes the task.

The key point is to have a diversity of tools and approaches. This diversity enables better adaptation to the product’s complexity. It is diversity, not balance, that is the key to quality testing.