QA & software test automation
for reliable digital products

QA automation testing uses scripted test suites — built with tools like Playwright, Cypress or Selenium — to execute test cases automatically instead of a person clicking through the application by hand. It's best suited to test cases you run repeatedly (regression suites, smoke tests, cross-browser checks), while exploratory and usability testing usually stay manual, where human judgment matters more.

QA (quality assurance) is the broader discipline: test strategy, test case design, risk assessment, exploratory testing, and release sign-off. Test automation is one tool within QA — the practice of scripting repeatable checks so they run on every build without manual effort. A mature QA practice combines both: automation for repeatable coverage, and skilled human testers for judgment calls automation can't make.

Automation lets you re-run your full regression suite on every commit instead of only before a release, which means regressions get caught within minutes of being introduced rather than weeks later. It also frees your QA engineers from repetitive manual checks so they can spend more time on exploratory testing, edge cases, and new feature coverage — the work automation can't do for you.

It depends on your application and constraints. Playwright is a strong default for modern web apps needing fast, reliable cross-browser and cross-tab automation. Cypress is a good fit for teams that want tight feedback loops during development and heavy component-level testing, though its cross-browser and multi-tab support is more limited. Selenium remains the right call for legacy browser matrices, existing Selenium Grid infrastructure, or when you need language bindings outside the JavaScript ecosystem. We assess your stack, browser coverage requirements and CI/CD setup before recommending one.

Yes — regression automation is one of the highest-value places to start, since it's the test suite you're already re-running manually before every release. We identify which regression cases are worth automating (stable, high-value, frequently-run) versus which are better left manual, then build and maintain the automated suite.

Yes. We test REST and GraphQL APIs for functional correctness, integration behaviour, contract adherence, and negative/edge-case handling — independently of the UI, so issues get caught before they surface in the front end. API tests typically run earlier and faster in the pipeline than UI automation.

Yes. We test Android and iOS applications, including real-device testing, mobile browser testing, and responsive-layout validation, alongside functional and regression coverage for mobile-specific flows.

Yes — this is central to how we build automation, not an afterthought. We wire automated suites into pipelines like GitHub Actions, GitLab CI or Jenkins so tests run automatically on pull requests and merges, and can act as quality gates that block a deployment when critical tests fail.

Yes. AI application testing is different from traditional software testing because outputs are non-deterministic. We test prompt behaviour, evaluate response quality against defined criteria, run adversarial and prompt-injection checks, and build regression evaluation suites that flag when a model or prompt change degrades output quality — alongside standard integration testing of the surrounding application and APIs.

Self-healing automation refers to test scripts that can automatically adapt when a UI selector changes — for example, when an element's ID or class name shifts after a front-end update — instead of failing outright and requiring a manual fix. It reduces maintenance overhead on fast-moving front ends, though it isn't a substitute for well-structured, maintainable test architecture; we use it as one input, not the whole strategy.

As early as requirements and design — this is what "shift-left" testing means in practice. Reviewing requirements and designs for testability, writing test cases alongside development rather than after it, and running automated checks on every commit all catch issues while they're cheap to fix, rather than after they've reached staging or production.

Yes. We regularly work alongside in-house QA teams — extending existing automation frameworks, building out coverage in areas your team hasn't had bandwidth for, or handling a specific testing discipline (performance, security, mobile) that complements what your team already does. Tell us your current setup at contact@99visual.com and we'll scope how we fit in rather than duplicate effort.