Capability

QA & Testing Services

Comprehensive quality assurance

Comprehensive quality assurance across all solution types to ensure your software meets the highest standards of reliability and performance.

What it includes
  • Manual and automated testing
  • Performance and load testing
  • Security vulnerability testing
  • Cross-browser and device testing
  • CI/CD integration
What you get from it
  • Higher software quality
  • Reduced post-release bugs
  • Faster release cycles
  • Better user experience
Where it applies
  • Web apps
  • Mobile apps
  • APIs
  • Enterprise software
Stack
SeleniumCypressJestPlaywrightJMeterOWASP

Common questions

Can you test software you did not build?

Yes, and it is often more useful, because we have no attachment to the decisions. We start with an exploratory pass and a risk map - which parts would hurt most if they failed - then build coverage there first rather than chasing a percentage. A test suite optimised for a coverage number tests the easy code.

Manual or automated testing?

Both, for different jobs. Automation is for regression: the things that must keep working on every release, run in CI so a break is caught in minutes rather than by a customer. Manual exploratory testing is for finding what nobody thought to specify, which no automated suite discovers. Anyone who tells you automation replaces exploratory testing has not done much of either.

Can you work inside our existing CI pipeline?

Yes. Tests that only run on someone's laptop stop running within a month, so integration into your pipeline is part of the delivery rather than an extra. We work with GitHub Actions and Azure DevOps routinely, and the deliverable includes the pipeline configuration, not just the test code.

What do we actually receive at the end?

A test suite you own and can run, the pipeline configuration to run it, a documented defect list prioritised by severity rather than by discovery order, and a written account of what is covered and what deliberately is not. That last part matters: knowing where the gaps are is more useful than a report implying there are none.