Why do companies struggle with QA testing?
For enterprise software teams, GUI (Graphical User Interface) testing has become about far more than simply checking if buttons click correctly. Today, it's about ensuring software stability across complex environments, maintaining consistent UX across devices, scaling test automation efficiently, and minimizing business and reputational risk.
Despite these growing demands, many organizations still haven’t reached maturity in their UI testing operations or strategic alignment. And this misalignment affects everything: from automated regression testing to real-time GUI bug detection.
We asked Atte Pihlava, Director of Product Management, and this is what he said:
“For some companies, the challenge is viewing Software QA (Quality Assurance) activities as mere cost-centers rather than essential functions contributing to revenue. Others hold the misconception that developers can effectively test their own code, overlooking the specialized skill set QA professionals bring. I have also witnessed such things as ‘cultural inertia’; teams may resist adopting new, more efficient processes simply because they're comfortable with familiar routines, even if those routines aren't optimal.”
Atte also listed several other factors that contribute to poor UI test automation maturity:
-
Project managers and developers are often incentivized primarily on delivery speed, inadvertently deprioritizing quality.
-
For enterprises with tech debt, legacy systems further complicate matters, making automation investments appear dauntingly expensive or overly complex.
-
Negative experiences from previously unsuccessful QA automation initiatives can add to the hesitation, creating reluctance to try again.
Do any of these situations resonate with you?
Regardless of the underlying specific reasons, the outcome is almost always the same: inefficient GUI bug detection processes. And this inefficiency leads directly to:
-
Delayed software releases
-
Increased production failures
-
Frustrated users
-
Escalating QA costs
If you're struggling with GUI testing and UI bug/defect detection, it’s likely due to one or more of these common enterprise-level mistakes. In this article, we'll examine how these issues impact your release cycles, and explore practical, automation-first solutions that can help.
First thing first, let’s define what the key terms are:
What is a UI Bug?
UI bugs are flaws or errors in the graphical interface of software applications that can disrupt user interactions and hinder overall usability. These bugs can manifest in various forms, such as misaligned buttons, unresponsive elements, or inconsistent visual designs. Their impact on user experience can be significant, leading to frustration, confusion, and ultimately, a loss of user trust. A smooth and visually appealing UI is crucial in retaining users, making the identification and resolution of UI bugs a top priority for developers.
What is Regression Testing?
Regression testing is a quality assurance practice that verifies whether recent software changes have affected existing functionality. In enterprise environments where updates are frequent, ensuring that new code integrates smoothly with existing components is essential. Yet, manually testing every UI element for regressions can rapidly become overwhelming, impractical, and exhausting, especially as the project scales.
What is CI/CD?
CI/CD stands for Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (or Deployment). It’s a DevOps practice where developers integrate code into a shared repository frequently (CI), and each integration is automatically tested and prepared for release (CD).Pitfall 1: Relying Only on Manual Testing
Manual GUI testing remains widespread, particularly in legacy systems where automation is not yet fully integrated. However, relying too much on manual efforts results in inefficiencies that slow down the entire testing and release process. According to Capgemini’s World Quality Report 2024–2025, manual testing still dominates due to legacy application architectures, despite its limitations.
Regression Testing Delays
Have you ever been in a situation where tight deadlines led your team to feel pressured into cutting corners by skipping or reducing the scope of test cases?
Perhaps you've even experienced that sinking feeling when overlooked issues inevitably make it into production, requiring urgent fixes at inconvenient times. These emergency repairs not only incur unforeseen expenses but also disrupt planned work and derail your team's momentum.
Moreover, manual testing often leaves subtle GUI issues undetected until late in the testing cycle, or worse, after deployment. At that point, issues become significantly harder, more expensive, and more time-consuming to fix, stretching resources even thinner.
Beyond financial strain and operational headaches, inadequate regression testing has a direct negative impact on user satisfaction, potentially harming your company's reputation.
What is the Role of Manual Testing? The Answer: Still Relevant, When Focused
We want to be clear: manual testing absolutely still matters. It brings critical thinking, creativity, and human judgment into the QA process that test automation can’t fully replace.
The challenge isn’t with manual testing itself, but with how it's used. Too often, valuable tester time is spent on repetitive, low-value tasks that could (and should) be automated. Instead, manual testing should be focused on areas that truly benefit from human insight, like exploratory testing, usability reviews, and edge cases that require contextual understanding.
However, it is important to note that automated tests run without interruption, making it possible to check software continuously, even overnight. This removes the delays that come with waiting for manual testing cycles and helps teams catch issues early, before they grow more complex. France Telecom (one of the customers using Squish GUI Tester) summed it up well:
“It’s important to integrate the test automation process in the production process... with Squish, we can execute tests during the night and have the results the next morning.”
When test automation is built into the workflow, it doesn’t just save time, it gives teams a head start each day, with actionable results ready to go. By offloading routine workflows to automation, you can redirect your QA team's skills toward the kinds of tests that genuinely require their expertise.
Pitfall 1:Our QA team recommends:
-
Start measuring manual vs. automated test execution times. If manual testing accounts for more than 50% of your total test cycles, automation should be a top priority.
-
Start automating repetitive UI workflows such as login sequences, form submissions, and navigation flows to free up QA resources for exploratory testing. There is no need to rush and automate everything. Start small, yet impactful.
Pitfall 2: Incomplete Cross-Platform Test Coverage
One of the most common challenges in GUI testing at scale is ensuring consistent performance across different UI frameworks (e.g., Qt, Java, Web, Windows, iOS). Many testing tools struggle to handle cross-technology applications, forcing teams to maintain separate test scripts for each platform which significantly increases test maintenance costs.
For QA teams working in multi-platform environments, ineffective or incomplete testing often leads to subtle but impactful UI inconsistencies that frustrate users and impact adoption.
If your app doesn’t perform consistently across browsers, devices, and operating systems, users will quickly notice, and they’re not shy about voicing their frustration.
Effective cross-platform test automation catches these issues early, saving time and stress later. Whether it's:
- Ensuring consistent UI behavior on browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge
- Validating responsive behavior across desktop, tablet, and mobile
- Testing across Android and iOS, including multiple OS versions
- Running reliable GUI tests on Windows, macOS, and Linux
- Testing cloud-based applications across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud
- Ensuring seamless performance in apps built with Flutter, React Native, and other hybrid frameworks
- Addressing accessibility standards across devices and regions
Pitfall 2: Our QA team recommends:
- Run cross-browser and cross-device tests in parallel to eliminate coverage gaps
- Automate responsive UI testing to ensure your interface works at different screen sizes, resolutions, and accessibility settings
- Use specialized tools designed for scalable, cross-platform GUI test automation
To learn about a real-life implementation of this strategy, you can read about Nokia India.
Nokia India implemented a structured, automation-first cross-platform testing approach that:
- Avoided script duplication by reusing shared test logic across platforms
- Automated cross-OS data exchange testing for seamless integration
- Integrated test automation into their CI/CD pipeline to catch regressions early
Pitfall 3: Struggling With Test Maintenance Due to Frequent GUI Changes
One of the most frustrating bottlenecks in UI testing? Frequent GUI changes that constantly break test scripts.
Modern applications are developing rapidly. New buttons, layout tweaks, updated navigation patterns—all of these can break brittle tests. Instead of expanding test coverage or improving software quality, your team ends up trapped in an endless loop of fixing broken tests.
Have you ever found yourself stuck continuously fixing broken tests instead of creating new ones?
You’ve likely found yourself revisiting the same failed scripts again and again, instead of moving forward with new feature coverage or exploratory testing.
Reliable and repeatable automated tests require smart test data management. Using high-quality, reusable test data, such as generated dummy data or carefully masked real-world data, helps ensure consistency and reduces the likelihood of test failures due to data issues.
Ultimately, effective test automation is about reducing manual overhead, freeing testers to tackle more complex and critical tasks. By strategically designing low-maintenance, resilient test scripts and frameworks, your team can focus less on maintenance and more on improving your product.
Pitfall 3: Our QA team recommends:
- Use object-based test automation frameworks instead of fragile pixel-matching methods.
- Implement AI-driven self-healing test automation, which dynamically adjusts to minor UI changes without human intervention.
- Leverage test analytics to proactively identify recurring UI issues and test flakiness patterns.
White Paper
High Impact, Low Maintenance: Test Automation Strategies
Learn more about test maintenance and the best practises, strategies and practices to achieve low-maintenance tests in automated GUI testing.
Pitfall 4: Not Integrating GUI Testing with CI/CD Pipelines
One of the most common oversights in test automation strategies is treating GUI testing as a separate or secondary process, something to be done manually, irregularly, or only after the bulk of development is complete. This disconnect becomes especially problematic when GUI tests aren’t fully integrated into the CI/CD (Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment) pipeline.
GUI tests that aren’t tied to your CI/CD pipeline often become manual, irregular, or reactive.
By contrast, when GUI tests are seamlessly integrated into your CI/CD pipelines, they run automatically with every code commit. This enables early bug detection, faster feedback loops, and significantly improves the stability of each release. Developers and QA teams can identify and address issues before they reach production, reducing the risk of regressions and costly post-release fixes.
When your GUI tests are part of this pipeline, it ensures:
-
Automated testing happens immediately after code changes
-
Bugs are caught early in the cycle
-
Releases become more predictable and stable
Without proper integration, GUI tests often become siloed from the development workflow. This results in delayed feedback, missed bugs that sneak into production, and a reactive QA culture constantly playing catch-up. Late-breaking failures are harder to diagnose and fix, slowing down your release cycle and increasing the risk of delivering a poor user experience.
Failing to integrate GUI tests into CI/CD pipelines often leads to:
-
Missed bugs slipping into production
-
Delayed test cycles and late-breaking failures
-
More firefighting, less innovation
The real value lies in shifting GUI testing from a reactive safety net to a proactive quality gate. By embedding these tests into your pipeline, you reduce surprises late in the game, tighten feedback loops, and free up your team to focus on building better features rather than constantly putting out fires.
Pitfall 4: Our QA team recommends:
- Use automation tools that integrate easily with CI tools like Jenkins, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and Azure DevOps
- Ensure GUI tests run alongside unit and API tests
- Trigger GUI test suites on code commits, pull requests, and nightly builds
Pitfall 5: Ignoring GUI Performance & Load Testing
Most GUI testing focuses on functional validation, but users care about speed, responsiveness, and performance under load. In reality, users don't just expect an app to work, they expect it to perform quickly and smoothly, even under heavy usage.
Think about it: Have you ever opened an app only to close it in frustration because it was painfully slow or unresponsive under heavy load? Ignoring GUI performance testing means risking user dissatisfaction, negative reviews, and lost customers.
Neglecting GUI performance testing results in:
- Sluggish page loads
- Delayed animations or transitions
- Unresponsive inputs under high traffic
Pitfall 5: Our QA team recommends:
- Simulate realistic user traffic by running tests that mimic peak user load scenarios to identify performance bottlenecks
- Automate visual regression tests by detecting subtle slowdowns or visual inconsistencies that manual tests often miss, ensuring smoother deployments
- Network variability testing by testing your GUI under different network conditions, like slow 3G or high latency, to ensure consistent performance everywhere users might be
How Mature Is Your GUI Bug Detection Process?
If your team struggles with slow bug detection, unreliable test scripts, or inefficient GUI test coverage, it’s time to modernize your approach. Complimenting your manual efforts with test automation and cross-platform validation will improve UI stability, and enhance your enterprise’s overall software quality.
With the right strategy, you and your QA teams can transform GUI testing from a bottleneck into a competitive and revenue-driving advantage across the organisation. See it for yourself!
Next Steps
-
Assess your current test automation maturity by identifying areas where automation can improve efficiency
-
Identify the biggest bottlenecks in your GUI testing pipeline: Whether it’s slow regression cycles, poor device coverage, or anything else
-
Implement AI-powered, object-based test automation to reduce maintenance costs and improve adaptability to UI changes
You can discuss your automation maturity by contacting us and booking a meeting.