Every development team faces this problem: there’s more to test than there is time to automate. Test automation is on the roadmap, but time and again it loses out to new features, bug fixes, and the never-ending pressure to deliver. The result is predictable. Test coverage lags behind, regression testing is still largely done manually, and the only people who know how to write a test script are the very same developers who are already swamped with work.
Low-code test automation breaks that pattern. Instead of making test automation dependent on available programming capacity, you give testers, business analysts, and QA professionals the tools to set up robust, maintainable test automation on their own, without writing a single line of code. In this article, we explain exactly what low-code test automation is, which tools are setting the standard today, and how M2Q helps organizations get started right away with the right licenses and training.
Low-code test automation is an approach in which test scripts are built using a visual, graphical interface with drag-and-drop functionality, rather than through hand-written code. The underlying logic—keyword-driven test frameworks, reusable test components, and built-in object recognition—is handled by the tool, allowing even someone without in-depth programming knowledge to build a fully-fledged, maintainable automated test.
This is a fundamental difference from traditional test automation, where test scripts are written in Java, Python, or C# and can only be maintained by developers or specialized automation engineers. With low-code test automation, that responsibility shifts to the people who know the functional domain best: the testers themselves.
When test automation is entirely dependent on developer capacity, a bottleneck inevitably arises. Automating test scripts ends up on the backlog alongside all other development work, where it almost by definition takes a back seat to features that directly generate revenue or meet a deadline. Test automation thus becomes a project that “needs to be done at some point,” but never gets prioritized.
Meanwhile, the test debt is piling up. New features are being added, the regression test suite is growing, and the proportion of testing done manually continues to increase rather than decrease. Each release requires more manual testing time, even as the team wants to be able to deliver faster. The result is a team that wants to automate but consistently fails to get around to it, leading to declining test coverage and an increasing risk of regressions.
Low-code tools don’t solve this by making developers redundant, but by decoupling automation from their availability. Testers automate their own test cases, developers remain available for product development, and test coverage grows in tandem with the application rather than constantly playing catch-up.
A low-code testing tool provides a tester with three things that aren’t necessarily available with traditional scripting languages.
Accessibility. Test cases are built using recognizable, visual building blocks: click here, check that field, wait for this element. A functional tester or business analyst who knows the application inside and out can immediately translate that knowledge into a working test script, without first having to learn a programming language.
Speed. While writing test code manually for a complex scenario can easily take days, the same test can often be set up in a low-code tool within a few hours. That difference really adds up when you’re dealing with dozens or hundreds of test cases.
Maintainability. Applications are constantly changing, and any change to the UI can break a test script. In a low-code tool, you can update a test using the same visual interface in which it was built, often supported by self-healing object recognition that automatically accommodates minor UI changes. This makes maintaining a growing test suite manageable for a test team, rather than an increasing burden.
In addition, most low-code testing tools today integrate seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines such as Jenkins, GitLab, or Azure DevOps, allowing automated tests to become a natural part of the existing release workflow, rather than remaining a separate, parallel process.
Numbers are more convincing than promises. At Mediafin, publisher of De Tijd, L’Echo, Sabato, Belegger, and L’Investisseur, all regression tests for the five platforms were initially performed entirely manually. A single full round of testing took a week to complete and could therefore only be carried out every two weeks—just not fast enough to keep pace with the biweekly sprints.
M2Q automated the entire regression test suite—about 150 test cases—using the low-code testing tool Katalon Studio. The result: a regression test that previously took a full week was reduced to 6 hours and has since been running automatically three times a week via Jenkins on Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. This represents an average time savings of 85%, without compromising test coverage.
There isn’t a single “best” low-code testing tool. The best choice depends on your application landscape, your team, and your existing toolchain. Four names appear in just about every comparison list:
Tricentis Tosca focuses heavily on enterprise environments and end-to-end testing across multiple systems, using a comprehensive risk-based testing approach.
Katalon Studio combines an easy learning curve with robust support for web, mobile, API, and desktop testing, and integrates seamlessly with existing CI/CD pipelines.
TestComplete excels at UI test automation for desktop, web, and mobile applications, offering flexible scripting options for those who still want to make occasional adjustments using code.
Leapwork stands out for its fully visual, flowchart-like approach to building tests, which makes it particularly accessible to non-technical team members.
M2Q works with these and other low-code testing tools, sells the corresponding licenses, and helps organizations make the right choice based on their specific situation, application landscape, and team composition. After all, choosing the wrong tool is one of the main reasons why test automation initiatives stall early on.
A license for a low-code testing tool is only half the story. Without the right knowledge, even the most user-friendly tool will remain underutilized, and an automation initiative will get bogged down in disjointed, poorly maintained test scripts that, over time, end up costing more than they save.
That’s why M2Q offers both: licenses for leading low-code testing tools, as well as training to help testers, business analysts, and QA teams learn to use them independently and efficiently. From an initial introduction to the tool to best practices in test architecture, reusable components, and integration into the CI/CD workflow: the goal is always to ensure that, after the training, the team is self-sufficient rather than remaining dependent on external support.
Organizations that successfully transition to low-code test automation typically follow the same path:
With low-code test automation, you create test scripts primarily through a visual interface, with the option to use (limited) scripting where necessary for more complex scenarios. No-code test automation does not allow any code at all and is therefore simpler, but often less flexible for complex test cases.
Not to start with. You build most test cases using drag-and-drop and visual building blocks. For complex, technical scenarios, a basic knowledge of scripting can be helpful, but it’s not a requirement for becoming productive.
No. Low-code tools excel at repeatable, stable scenarios such as regression testing. Exploratory testing, usability testing, and scenarios that require human insight still require manual work. The two complement each other.
That depends on your application landscape and team. Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, TestComplete, and Leapwork each excel in different scenarios. M2Q will recommend the tool that best suits your specific situation.
It depends on the situation, but the results can be significant. At Mediafin, M2Q reduced the time required for regression testing with Katalon Studio from a full week to 6 hours—an average time savings of 85%.
Yes. In addition to selling licenses, M2Q offers training courses that teach testers, business analysts, and QA teams how to work independently with low-code test automation tools—from an introduction to best practices for maintenance and CI/CD integration.
Low-code test automation lowers the barrier to automation, but it only truly solves the problem when the right tool is combined with the right expertise. Want to know which low-code testing tool best suits your applications and team, and how to empower your testers to use it independently? Contact M2Q for a no-obligation consultation about licenses and customized training.
