Manual regression testing slows every release and still misses things. Agnotic Technologies builds test automation your team can trust: the right tests at the right layer, wired into CI as quality gates, with flaky tests under control and a suite your team owns.
Trusted by global innovators
QA automation
Test automation is replacing repeated manual checks with code that tests your product on every change. Agnotic Technologies builds QA automation for web, mobile and API products: we choose what to automate first, pick frameworks per platform, wire tests into CI as quality gates, control flaky tests and hand the suite to your team.
Automation does not replace testers. It takes over the checks that repeat every release, so people can spend their time on exploratory testing, new features and the cases a script cannot judge.
Our wider QA services, including manual testing, are on the QA and testing page. Security and penetration testing are a separate service.
Where to start
The order we follow on most products, so the first gates pay off quickly.
We list user flows and business rules by what breaks most often and what costs most when it does.
API tests for the riskiest rules come first, because they are fast, stable and cheap to maintain.
A handful of end-to-end journeys that earn money or keep users safe, such as sign-up, checkout or booking.
Unit and API tests block a merge when they fail; UI tests block a release.
We automate further only where your team repeats the same manual checks every release.
Exploratory testing, visual review and usability stay with people.
Decision table
Each layer has a job. Putting a check at the lowest layer that can catch it keeps the suite fast.
| Test layer | What to automate | Typical tool family | CI gate it feeds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit | Business rules, calculations and edge cases | The language's own test runner | Every commit; blocks the merge |
| API and contract | Endpoints, access per role, response schemas and contracts between services | HTTP test clients and consumer-driven contract tools | Every pull request; blocks the merge |
| Web UI | A few critical journeys, end to end | Playwright, Cypress or Selenium WebDriver | Deploy to staging; blocks the release |
| Mobile device | Sign-in, core flows, permissions and offline behaviour | XCUITest, Espresso or Appium on real and virtual devices | Nightly and before store submission |
| Accessibility | The WCAG 2.2 checks that rules can detect | Rule-based scanners run inside UI tests | Warns on pull requests; blocks new failures at release |
| Performance | Response times of key endpoints under expected load | Load testing tools against a staging stack | Before major releases, not every commit |
Automated accessibility checks catch only part of WCAG. We pair them with manual checks before major releases.
End to end testing
End to end testing of journeys that cross other systems works when the suite stays small and controlled: a few high-stakes journeys, partner sandboxes where they exist, stubs only at the outer boundary, fresh data on both sides for every run and the same journeys checked again in production. Agnotic Technologies builds them in that order.
Manual vs automated testing is decided per test type. Exploratory and usability testing stay manual; smoke, regression and data-driven checks are automated; accessibility, cross-browser and performance testing need both. Agnotic Technologies marks every check with that decision and its reason, and automates a manual check only once it is stable and repeats.
A tester follows hunches into new paths. A script only repeats what someone already thought of.
Whether a person understands a screen is a judgement only people can make.
Rule checks run in the suite; screen reader and keyboard testing against WCAG 2.2 is done by a person.
A short set that runs on every deploy, where speed matters more than depth.
The same checks every release are where manual effort repeats the most.
Many input combinations through one flow are slow and easy to get wrong by hand.
Functional checks run on each browser automatically; a person reviews layout on the browsers your users use most.
Tools generate the load; an engineer reads the results and decides what is acceptable.
Frameworks
We pick per platform and per team, and keep the number of frameworks small.
Codeless or scripted
Codeless vs scripted testing automation is a choice about who owns the tests. Codeless tools let testers record and edit tests visually; scripted frameworks keep tests as code in your repository, reviewed like product code. Agnotic Technologies usually recommends scripted tests for long-lived products, and replaces a Selenium suite only when its upkeep blocks releases.
| Criterion | Codeless tool | Scripted framework |
|---|---|---|
| Who writes and maintains tests | Testers and analysts without coding skills, in the tool's editor | Engineers and test engineers, in the same languages as the product |
| Where tests are stored | In the tool's platform, in its own format | As code in your repository, next to the product code |
| Code review | Changes reviewed inside the tool, where it supports reviews | Pull requests with the same review rules as product code |
| Complex data and logic | Limited to the steps and plug-ins the tool offers | Anything the language can express, including test data set up through APIs |
| CI integration | Through the tool's own runner or API | Runs in your CI system like any other test job |
| Leaving the tool | Export options differ by tool, so check them before you commit | The tests stay in your repository and run on open source runners |
Moving a Selenium WebDriver suite happens in four stages: (1) new tests go into the new framework, (2) the smoke suite is ported first, (3) both suites run in CI until their results match, (4) the old runner is retired.
Flaky tests
A suite people ignore is worse than no suite. These are the causes we design out.
Challenge
A test fails, then passes on retry.
Agnotic approach
It is marked flaky, moved to quarantine with a named owner and a fix date, and does not block releases while it is there.
Challenge
Tests wait with fixed sleeps.
Agnotic approach
Tests wait for the condition they need, using the framework's own waiting, never a fixed delay.
Challenge
Tests share data and break each other.
Agnotic approach
Each test creates its own data through the API and cleans up after itself.
Challenge
Third-party services are slow or down.
Agnotic approach
Integration tests use stubs for outside services; a small separate suite checks the real connections.
Challenge
Tests pass only in a certain order.
Agnotic approach
Tests run in parallel and in random order in CI, so hidden dependencies show up early.
Challenge
UI tests break on every design change.
Agnotic approach
Locators use roles, labels and test IDs instead of layout, so a restyle does not break the suite.
Hand-over
Your team does. The hand-over includes everything they need to keep it healthy.
Who it is for
Teams where release confidence is the bottleneck.
Products past their MVP, where a small team can no longer test every release by hand.
Releases that wait days for manual regression testing to finish.
Suites that nobody trusts any more, migrated or rebuilt with the tests worth keeping.
Device tests that run before every store submission.
Teams that need traceable, repeatable test evidence for each release.
Standards
Open standards behind the tools and checks we use.
Tool documentation and standards that shape a test suite, each linked to its source.
Playwright Test reports a test as flaky when it fails on the first run but passes when retried, separately from tests that passed first time and tests that failed every retry.
Source: Playwright documentation: Retries (Microsoft)Espresso waits before each UI action or assertion until the main message queue is empty, no AsyncTask is running and all developer-defined idling resources are idle.
Source: Espresso (Android Developers)WebDriver, the remote control interface that lets test code drive a browser, has been a W3C Recommendation since 5 June 2018.
Source: WebDriver, W3C Recommendation (W3C)The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative states that evaluation tools cannot check all accessibility aspects automatically and cannot determine accessibility on their own; human judgement is required.
Source: Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools (W3C WAI)Scope and cost
There is no price list. The size of test automation work comes from the factors below, and the quote follows the scoping call.
Web, iOS, Android and APIs, and how many browsers and devices each needs.
How many journeys and business rules the first gates must cover.
How hard it is to create realistic test data through your APIs.
Whether a stable test environment exists or has to be built first.
Which CI system you use and how much pipeline work the gates need.
Whether we start fresh or migrate and repair an existing suite.
From the first gates to a suite your team runs alone.
We review your current testing, rank flows by risk and agree the first gates.
PlanAPI and smoke tests in CI, test data scripts and the flaky test process, running on every change.
BuildCoverage grows where manual work repeats, and your team takes over with our support if needed.
Hand over
