In the world of software testing, code coverage and automation rate are often regarded as the holy grails of quality measurement. A test coverage of 90%? Impressive! An automation rate of 95%? Fantastic! But what do these numbers actually say about the overall quality of an application or the professionalism of the QA team? Surprisingly little – when viewed in isolation.
Numbers Are Not Synonymous with Quality
It’s tempting to see KPIs like code coverage or automation rate as the ultimate answer to quality concerns. After all, they’re measurable, easy to communicate, and suggest progress. But here lies the issue: These metrics have their downsides.
- Code Coverage: High code coverage doesn’t automatically mean the tests are meaningful or effectoive. 100% coverage can be achieved with superficial tests that ignore actual logic or edge cases.
- Automation Rate: A high automation rate is only valuable if the automated tests are truly robust and relevant. Too many automated tests can also affect maintainability, especially in complex systems.
Quality Is More Than Just a Number
I’ve seen teams working with low automation rates and moderate code coverage – yet still delivering impressive quality. How? Because their agile testers and developers understand quality as a whole:
- They deliberately use exploratory testing to uncover weaknesses that automated tests cannot cover.
- They focus on risks and critical areas of the application instead of getting lost in KPI numbers.
- They foster a culture where quality means more than just meeting targets.
On the other hand, there are teams that deliver impressive numbers – but their applications are riddled with issues. This shows that good KPIs alone do not automatically lead to good
quality.
Context Is Everything
The quality of an application and the work of a test team must always be viewed in context:
- What are the requirements? Some systems are so complex that a high automation rate is unrealistic.
- What is the team structure? An experienced team with a strong focus on quality can deliver outstanding work without impressive KPIs.
- What challenges exist? DiƯerent applications require different testing approaches –
what works in one context may fail in another.
KPIs Are Tools, Not Goals
Code coverage and automation rates are useful tools for reflecting on your work and improving your approaches. But they should never become the sole benchmark for quality. The real indicators of strong quality are:
- A stable application that provides real value to users.
- A team that can respond to challenges agilely and continuously improve.
- A culture where quality is not just measured but lived.
Conclusion: Quality Is More Than KPI Glitter
The numbers might look good, but true quality lies beneath the surface – and it cannot be reduced to a single KPI. Instead, we should always view KPIs as part of a bigger picture, embedded in the context of the application, the team, and the company’s goals. In the end, it’s not about how many percentages are covered or automated – it’s about how good the application truly is.
