Quality assurance and testing that catches bugs before your users do.

It depends on the size of the product and how much you want automated versus manual coverage, but you get a fixed price in writing after a short discovery call, so there is no ambiguity about what you are paying for before work starts. Automated test suites cost more upfront to build but pay for themselves quickly on products that release frequently, since the same tests run on every commit at no additional cost; manual and exploratory testing costs less to start but scales with each additional testing round. For a rough ballpark first, try our free cost calculator, which accounts for testing scope and returns an instant estimate. As a general shape, setting up a foundational automated suite covering core user flows typically takes two to four weeks; ongoing manual testing per release is scoped separately based on release frequency, which we map out clearly during discovery.

Yes, and this is common work for us rather than an unusual request. We regularly set up automated test suites and run structured QA on existing products, whether we built them originally or inherited them from another team, and we start by reviewing what test coverage, if any, already exists so we are not duplicating work or missing known problem areas. We hand you the resulting tests to keep regardless of whether you continue working with us afterward, since a test suite is only genuinely useful if your own team can run and extend it going forward, not something that only functions while we are still involved. This often surfaces existing bugs that had gone unnoticed simply because nobody had tested certain edge cases systematically before, which is frequently as valuable to a client as the testing infrastructure itself.

Both, and we recommend the specific mix based on your product and budget rather than defaulting to whichever is easier for us to deliver. Automated suites, unit, integration and end-to-end tests, catch regressions on every commit and are especially valuable for products that release frequently, since the same coverage runs for free on every future change without any additional testing time required. Manual and exploratory testing finds the real-world edge cases and usability problems that scripts genuinely miss, someone actually using the product the way a confused or unusual real user might, which automated tests are not well suited to catching. For most products we recommend automating the critical, high-frequency paths, login, checkout, core workflows, while reserving manual testing for new features and exploratory sessions before major releases. We propose a specific split during discovery based on your release cadence.

A documented test suite wired directly into your CI/CD pipeline so it runs automatically on every commit rather than sitting unused until someone remembers to trigger it manually, clear and reproducible bug reports for anything we find along the way, with exact steps to reproduce rather than vague descriptions your developers then have to chase down themselves, and coverage you own outright with full documentation explaining what each test actually checks and why. Your own team can run and extend the tests after we are done, since the whole point is durable quality infrastructure, not a one-time audit that goes stale the moment we step away. We also provide a summary of overall coverage and any areas we would flag as higher risk, so you have a clear, honest picture of where the product stands, not just a pass or fail stamp with no context.

Yes. QA and testing is offered on its own as well as alongside a build, and it suits agencies and in-house teams who want an independent set of eyes on a release without changing how they develop. We work from your staging environment and repository, agree the scope and a fixed price in writing after a short discovery call, and confirm a start date once we know your release schedule. We fit into the tools you already use for tracking work, whether that is Jira, Trello or something else, so bugs land where your developers already look.

Both are available, scoped separately from functional testing. Performance testing means simulating realistic traffic with tools like k6 and JMeter to find slow queries, bottlenecks and the point where the app starts to strain, which is worth doing even for a small site if you expect a traffic spike from a launch or campaign. Security testing is OWASP-based and checks for common issues such as injection, cross-site scripting, broken access control and exposed data. No honest tester will promise a product is fully secure, so you get a ranked list of what we found and how to fix it, rather than a blanket guarantee.

We go through your main user journeys, such as sign-up, checkout or booking, the way a first-time user would, and record where people hesitate, get lost or make mistakes. The output is a short list of specific friction points, each with a screenshot or recording and a suggested fix, ordered by how likely it is to cost you a conversion. It works best before a major launch or redesign, and it pairs well with accessibility testing since the two often surface the same problems.

We choose tools to fit your stack rather than the other way round. For browser automation we use Playwright, Cypress and Selenium; Jest for unit tests; Appium for mobile apps; k6 and JMeter for load and performance; Postman for API checks; OWASP ZAP for security scanning; and BrowserStack when you need real-device and cross-browser coverage. Whatever we use, the tests live in your repository and run in your pipeline, so you can keep running them without us.

Yes, because they find different bugs. Automated tests only check what someone thought to write a test for, while a human tester tries the odd paths, such as going back mid-payment, pasting too much text into a field or using an older browser, that scripts never cover. We usually recommend automating your stable, high-frequency flows and keeping manual testing for new features and pre-release exploration. We wrote up the reasoning in our guide to manual testing services.