QA and Test Automation Services for a suite that still works a year in.

It depends on how much surface you want covered and how testable the product already is. The number comes out of scoping rather than off a price list, because a headline figure would be wrong for almost everyone who read it. The drivers are the number of journeys in scope, how many browsers and environments you need, whether test data and sign-in can be set up programmatically, and how much of an existing suite is worth keeping. Three billing models: time and materials, billed hourly and quoted per project; fixed price, outcome based and quoted per project; and team extension, billed monthly per team member. There is no minimum engagement period.

You see the first stage early: a running framework and a green smoke suite land before the bulk of the test writing, so you can judge the work before most of the budget is spent. After that the timeline tracks the number of journeys in scope and how testable the product is, so the duration is set against your codebase. Most engagements start within two to four weeks, and the assessment is what puts the rest of the schedule on paper.

Yes, and that is the normal case. We build the suite inside your repository and integrate it with the pipeline you already have, so tests run on every push and results land where your team already looks. We work against Microsoft, PHP and JavaScript stacks alike, from ASP.NET and .NET through Laravel and TypeScript front ends. An API layer asserts against your endpoints directly rather than only through the browser, which is what keeps the suite fast enough to finish before anybody wants the result. If there is no pipeline yet, our DevOps consulting team builds one.

Once the thing you want covered has stopped changing shape. Automate a screen still under redesign and the suite needs rewriting every sprint; wait too long and the manual re-check becomes the reason releases slip. The practical trigger is regression cost: when a release means a day of re-checking someone has already done five times, that is the first thing to automate. Order the rest the same way, stable and repeated and expensive-to-run-by-hand first, then the critical journeys, then the load scenarios you cannot reproduce by hand. A fast-shifting interface stays manual until it settles.

No. Automation handles the repeated checks and the regression pass; human testers do exploratory work, usability, and the edge cases nobody thought to write a ticket for. In practice a good suite makes manual testing more valuable rather than less, because testers stop re-running the same pass and start hunting the defects nobody wrote a script for. If what you need is the testing itself run by people, that is software testing and QA rather than this page.

The one your own developers can read, because whoever inherits the suite has to maintain it. That usually means the language the product is already written in. On published work we built a TestCafe suite for a Japanese real estate platform, generated from a tailored Test Cases System, with extending and maintaining that automation inside the same engagement and the tests written in JavaScript or TypeScript. The tooling decision is part of the written strategy, not something you have to settle before the first call.

You do. The framework lives in your repository, the Test Cases System is written so your own team can read and extend it, and the documentation goes with it. On the independent-QA engagement behind a Japanese real estate platform that was the explicit deliverable: a QA workflow, a tailored Test Cases System, a Testing Roadmap that can be applied at every stage of development, and well-structured QA documentation. If you later bring QA in-house, you take over something maintained rather than reverse-engineer it.

Yes, through a separate service, because the method is different. A model output is not pass or fail against a fixed expectation, so classic assertions do not work; you need evaluation sets, behavioral tests for agents, and drift monitoring. That is our AI QA and evals practice, and where a product mixes deterministic and AI features the two suites run side by side in one pipeline.

The regression pass, first, and how fast a fix can reach production after it. What decides whether that adds up to more than the suite costs to keep is the order of coverage: automate a day-long re-check somebody already runs every release and it pays back quickly, automate the screen the design team is still moving and you pay maintenance for coverage you throw away. On one live waiver platform we took over, automated tests plus a scalable architecture took the time for an update to reach live from weeks to a couple of hours. The payback period follows from what you are re-checking today, which is where the assessment starts.

Compare on four things you can check, and we answer all four before you sign. Ask to see a suite that has been running for a year, rather than a coverage screenshot from the week it was written. Ask what happens to a test that fails at random in it, whether it gets re-run until green, muted, or fixed; ours get fixed or deleted, and that triage is inside the engagement rather than billed as a surprise. Ask where the framework and the written cases live when the work ends, because here they sit in your repository and they are yours. And ask whether the engineers are in-house, since that is what decides whether the person who wrote a test is reachable in month six. Ours come from 100+ senior in-house engineers, and each quotation on this page links to the review it came from rather than to a rating.

Three situations fit us best, and the first call settles which of them apply. Your product has settled enough to script: while it still changes shape every week, testing by hand covers it until it settles. You want the suite maintained as the product changes, because a maintained suite is the one that keeps paying back. And a remote team fits how you work: our engineers work from Ukraine, Poland, Estonia and the UK. On procurement: we hold ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, renewed through a multi-stage audit with Quay Audit UK.