When crowdsourcing works and when it doesn’t — and why

While crowdsourcing (whether with manual testers or QA engineers) has its place in a comprehensive testing regime alongside unit and integration tests, penetration tests, and usability tests, it is not an effective (or even cost-efficient) replacement for automated end-to-end regression testing.

When does crowdsourcing software testing make sense?

In essence, crowdsourcing manual testers is a multi-national bug bash. Hundreds of thousands of manual testers work through an application in “parallel” without the cost of automated test maintenance or the headache of maintaining testing infrastructure. The approach is advantageous when applications have geographically-specific settings and workflows or localized versions that need a native speaker.

Crowdsourcing makes sense for:

1. Geo-fenced & location-based features such as GPS & location-based services (e.g., rideshare, food delivery, geotagging) and geo-restricted content or regional compliance testing (e.g., GDPR prompts in the EU vs. CCPA in California).
2. Testing app behavior under different real-world network speeds (3G, 4G, 5G, LTE, weak Wi-Fi), roaming, or network switching.
3. Real-world usability & accessibility tests, like screen readability in different lighting conditions or verifying assistive technology like external keyboards.

Even in these specialized cases, using a network of freelance contractors (with varying skill levels, industry experience, and incentives) to test a feature or application presents challenges for the development team that negate any perceived benefit, as we’ll discuss next. Those challenges become even more pronounced when expanding the coverage goals with automated regression testing.

Challenges and limitations of crowdsourcing

Crowdsourced testing is like a potluck dinner where everyone brings a dish. Some guests will be experienced gourmands, others could burn water, and most will be somewhere between. At a potluck, the variety can be fun — when testing your app, variety is a risk.

• Inconsistent speed and accuracy. Effective testing requires planning and communication to make sure that the right workflows and test cases are covered. Different testers might produce different results for the same test scenarios, not just because the application state varies but also because the pool of testers might interpret instructions differently.
  
  Making sure that manual testers follow the test script exactly is tough enough, but when you spread those test cases across a random mix of experienced and new testers, like in crowdsourcing, it’s pretty much impossible. This also means you can’t really guarantee confidence in the results. Gaps in experience become even more pronounced when crowdsourcing automated tests. QA engineers might struggle to create tests for complex cases or to understand code created by another QA engineer. Establishing and enforcing standards is particularly challenging when QA engineers are constantly rotating.

• Security risks. It’s axiomatic that the more testers who access the software, the higher the risk of security and intellectual property breaches. When dealing with a distributed team of freelance contractors, you can’t guarantee that data handling protocols are uniformly followed or enforced.
  ‍
  If you decide to crowdsource automated regression tests, you can take security precautions like VPNs, proxies, and two-factor authentication. However, they will hinder the team’s ability to rapidly adjust to changing project needs, reducing the agility that is one of the promises of crowdsourcing. But when you have thousands of strangers poking at your application, it's better to be safe and slow than sorry.  
  
• Coordination headaches. Crowdsourcing compounds the familiar management challenges with outsourced vendors because instead of having a small team with dedicated project leads, you’re dealing with dozens to hundreds of individuals — likely working on multiple clients simultaneously — through test case management portals.
  ‍
  That said, manual test cases are going to be considerably easier to crowdsource than automated regression tests simply by virtue of needing a place to check in code that’s globally accessible. Keeping a code base clean with full-time QA engineers is hard enough, but it's a nightmare when multiple testers edit the same test in the same week.

How does QA Wolf’s managed testing differ from crowdsourcing?

Guaranteed levels of test coverage

Few testing services offer coverage guarantees because doing so requires absolute confidence in their testing processes and expertise. To guarantee coverage, a provider needs to know their testing methods are thorough and can be executed perfectly across all projects. This confidence comes from having a solid testing framework, skilled testers who deeply understand the software they’re working with, and strong quality controls to maintain consistency.  Furthermore, offering such guarantees demands a comprehensive grasp of the software’s potential weak spots and user scenarios—something that’s tough to maintain with complex or constantly changing software.

Crowdsourcing firms don’t offer coverage guarantees due to the nature of their model. They rely on a wide array of contributors from all over, which naturally leads to variability in the quality and thoroughness of testing. Each tester brings their own approach and skills to the table, which, while great for catching a diverse set of potential issues, makes it tough to promise consistent coverage across the board. This inconsistency isn’t necessarily a flaw—it helps them discover unique problems that might not surface otherwise. But that means that relying solely on crowdsourcing might leave you with some gaps in your testing strategy. It’s perfect for broadening your test scope, but it’s not the most reliable method for providing full coverage.

Our commitment is that, right from the start, we’ll automate 80% of your critical workflows. We chose this number because our extensive experience and data analysis have shown that 80% is the minimum needed to significantly reduce bugs, enhance software reliability, and accelerate your development cycle. In designing your coverage, we focus on the highest priority aspects of your project, ensuring your team experiences fewer errors, faster releases, and a stable product. By committing to this level of coverage, we establish a foundation of quality and reliability that supports your project’s success from day one.

Full-time staff dedicated to specific clients

Traditionally, QA Engineers are viewed as product experts and act as team resources due to their deep understanding of the product’s intricacies, development lifecycle, and potential future challenges. This expertise allows them to identify and address immediate issues and anticipate and mitigate future risks.

However, when you use crowdsourcing, you lose this because crowdsourcing relies on a constantly changing pool of contributors who don’t get the opportunity to develop a deep engagement with any single project. To address this, crowdsourcing platforms often appoint account managers or customer success representatives to maintain continuity. While those folks can help bridge some gaps, they cannot replace the nuanced understanding and continuity that comes from a team working closely and consistently on the same project. Furthermore, some crowdsourcing firms use custom project management tools and no-code to track progress and maintain consistency, and they hold regular training sessions to onboard new testers. But tools take time to learn and master, and work against crowdsourcing’s advantageous ability to scale rapidly.  

At QA Wolf, our approach includes dedicated QA engineers who work in a pod-based team structure. Each pod consists of full-time, salaried professionals trained extensively in our methodologies and the specific technologies of their assigned clients. This pod structure ensures that every team member, regardless of their specific role, is familiar with all aspects of your project, enhancing continuity and the overall effectiveness of the testing process. Our rigorous training regimen equips them with the technical skills and strategic insight needed to align closely with your project goals.

In-house technology that optimizes test reliability

Test reliability means that your test results are consistent over time; they pass when the application is working and fail and only if there’s a bug. Reliable tests yield software that behaves predictably and safely.  As your test reliably increases, your developers grow more confident about releasing quickly and frequently. But achieving test reliability is impossible without great tools. You need a robust test framework, solid execution infrastructure, and telemetry that lets you objectively measure how well you are doing to identify areas for improvement.

Crowdsourced testing often struggles with reliability, especially in automation, due to the lack of consistent product knowledge and testing standards among a diverse pool of contributors. Automation requires a deep understanding of the product to effectively simulate user interactions and catch subtle bugs, which is typically missing in crowdsourcing setups. Moreover, the consistency needed for effective automated testing is compromised by the varied approaches of different testers. Crowdsourcing platforms that attempt to manage this through advanced technology often end up pushing the responsibility of managing complex, low/no-code tools onto the customers, limiting their flexibility and forcing them into roles of tool management. Unlike dedicated services, crowdsourced platforms generally do not gather detailed, real-time data, making it challenging to analyze test execution minutely and adapt strategies quickly.

At QA Wolf, we use custom-developed technology to deliver reliable and precise testing results specifically tailored to the unique demands of each client’s project. Features like full parallelism let us execute tests simultaneously across various environments, decreasing cycle times for investigation, maintenance, and bug reporting. Our AI-driven system automatically retries tests that produce flaky results, ensuring our data’s integrity. Furthermore, Task Wolf, our advanced project management tool, provides in-depth, real-time test execution analysis and lets us make up-to-the-minute adjustments to maintain the project’s momentum.

Business model that aligns with customer goals

Charlie Munger once said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” This saying is particularly relevant when selecting a vendor for automated end-to-end testing. Automated end-to-end testing includes every stage of a transaction, from initiation to final outputs and all vital user interactions along the way. Vendors who want to align their goals with their customers will opt for a business model that doesn’t create negative incentives that could impact the customer adversely. Instead, the model should give the vendor some skin in the game, aligning their goals directly with the customer’s success.

Crowdsourcing vendors struggle to align their business models with customer objectives due to the inherently variable nature of their workforce. After all, crowdsourcing vendors rely on a diverse pool of testers, who might only be involved in projects temporarily and under different contractual terms, leading to fluctuations in availability, commitment, and testing approaches. It’s not easy to figure out a fair way to charge for such a service. Charging by usage, such as per-test-cycle or hourly rates, encourages testers to take their time, inflating costs without improving quality. On the other hand, paying per bug found motivates testers to focus solely on quantity, so testers find a bunch of minor bugs and miss the critical, complex problems that take longer to find and reproduce.

At QA Wolf, we structured our business model to build long-term partnerships by aligning our incentives directly with the success of our clients. We charge per test under management rather than by the hour or per bug.  That means we don’t get paid more if we have to investigate or maintain your tests, but instead, failing tests negatively impacts our bottom line. Also, this fixed rate simplifies budgeting. Because our revenue model is tied to the reliability of the tests we manage, we’re motivated  to optimize for long-term performance,

Key questions to ask QA vendors that crowdsource testing services

Choosing the right testing service between QA Wolf and various crowdsourced models isn’t just about matching services to your project’s needs—you need to understand how these services operate and align with your broader business goals. Here are some questions you can ask that will help you figure that out:

• How do you ensure consistent quality among tests performed by different testers from diverse backgrounds?
• What security measures are in place to protect sensitive data and IP when multiple testers access our software?
• Can you describe the quality control processes you use to manage variability in test outcomes?
• How do you integrate results from various testers into our existing development workflows?
• What project management tools and strategies do you use to coordinate a large, distributed team of testers?
• What training or certifications are required for testers before they can participate in projects?
• How is tester performance monitored and incentivized to prevent gaming the system?
• What pricing model do you follow, and how might it influence the testing efforts?
• In cases where quick scaling is necessary, how rapidly can you mobilize additional testers, and what are the cost implications?
• How do you handle discrepancies or disputes over bug validity between testers and customers?

These questions should help you make sense of the various models that are available in crowdsourcing.  In general, crowdsourcing is best for fixed-scope projects such as legacy apps in maintenance mode or if you need a wide geographic spread or specific hardware testing that’s not widely available. If your application is a prototype and you know your tests won’t live long enough to need regular maintenance, crowdsourcing your testing is likely a good option.  But, not all crowdsourcing vendors are the same, so it’s important to ask the right questions to make sure their incentives align with your goals.

In all other cases, QA Wolf can effectively meet the needs of crowdsourcing customers by offering broad test coverage through a skilled team experienced across various technologies and industries. We match the scalability of crowdsourcing with flexible resource allocation and give our customers speed and agility through our custom technology. But, unlike crowdsourcing, QA Wolf provides predictable pricing by charging for tests under management, ensuring clear budgeting without the hidden costs associated with variable project scopes. Moreover, QA Wolf ensures consistent quality through rigorous control processes and a stable team, making it a robust alternative for businesses seeking reliable, scalable, and quality-driven testing services aligned with their strategic goals.

‍