The first call is free. We will tell you honestly whether you need a test suite, a review, or just two days of exploratory testing.
The people who wrote the code check that it works the way they meant it to. That catches the mistakes they were capable of anticipating, which is not the set of mistakes that reaches your users. Four patterns account for most of what gets through.
Correct data, in order, one at a time. Nobody double-clicks submit, pastes an emoji into a name field, or hits back mid-payment.
Blind spotsNobody retested checkout, because the change was to the profile page. Regressions are the most common bug in production and the easiest to prevent.
RegressionChrome on a fast laptop. Not Safari, not a four-year-old Android, not a screen reader, not a slow connection.
Coverage gapsHalf the tests fail randomly, so the team re-runs until green. A flaky suite is worse than none: it costs time and buys no confidence.
FlakinessYour users will find the bug.
The only question is whether they find it first.
Independent testing works because we did not build the thing. We arrive without the authors' assumptions, which is exactly the position from which the gap between what software does and what everyone believed it did becomes visible.
A defect does not get more complicated as it ages. It gets more expensive, because of everything that has to happen around it once it is live and someone else has already been affected.
A failing test, a developer who still remembers the code, a fix, and a green build. Nobody outside the team ever knows it happened.
Support tickets, a hotfix under pressure, corrupted data to repair, refunds or apologies, and a day nobody spent building anything.
That gap is the entire argument for QA, and it widens the further downstream you go. It is also why the goal is never zero bugs, which is not achievable. The goal is that the expensive ones are found on your side of the release.
Four kinds of testing, deliberately different from each other. Automation defends what you already have, and people find what nobody thought to automate.
Does it do what it is supposed to, and what happens when it doesn't.
ManualThe checks that must happen on every release, forever.
RegressionThe failures that arrive with success or with attention.
Non-functionalWhether it works for everyone, not just for you.
CompatibilityQA is not one engagement. Some teams want a pair of eyes for two weeks before a launch, others want a suite built once and left behind.
Testing starts by working out what would actually hurt. Coverage for its own sake is how teams end up with a slow suite that protects nothing important.
Which flows carry money, data or reputation, and what the consequence is if each one fails. That ranking decides where every hour of testing goes.
What gets automated, what stays manual, which browsers and devices are in scope, and what is explicitly out. Agreed in writing before anyone starts.
Hands on the product, going deliberately off the happy path. This nearly always finds the most interesting problems, and it shapes what is worth automating.
Critical journeys automated first, written against stable hooks so a design change does not break fifty tests, and wired into CI as it grows.
Findings with severity, reproduction steps and evidence, then verification once they are fixed, plus a regression test so the same bug cannot return quietly.
The suite in your repository, documented, with a walkthrough so your developers can add to it rather than working around it.
Matched to your stack and to what your developers already know, because a suite in an unfamiliar tool is a suite nobody maintains after we leave.
We build software as well as test it, which changes the quality of a bug report. Knowing roughly where a failure comes from is the difference between a ticket a developer can act on and one that gets returned marked "cannot reproduce".
Hands-on experience per engineer, across agencies, product companies and enterprises. No juniors learning on your budget.
Small by design. The person answering your questions in week one is still reachable in month six.
We have supported our own software in production, which is where you learn which bugs are worth losing sleep over. See how we work.
Every bug comes with reproduction steps, environment, expected against actual behaviour, severity and evidence. The test suite lives in your repository, not ours.
We will sign a mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement any time you want one, at no cost. You can read the exact document we use before you ask for it.
Not by trying to cover everything, which is how most automation efforts stall. We start with the handful of paths that would genuinely hurt if they broke: signing in, paying, checking out, submitting the thing your business runs on. A small suite covering those, running on every commit, catches most of what matters. Coverage grows from there, driven by what actually breaks.
Both, for different jobs. Automation is for the things you check on every single release and would otherwise stop checking: regressions, core flows, browser and device coverage. Manual exploratory testing is for finding what nobody thought to write a test for, which is where the genuinely surprising bugs live. Automating exploration does not work, and manually repeating regressions forever does not either.
Yes, and independent testing is often more useful precisely because we did not build it. We come to it without the assumptions the authors have, which is exactly the mindset that finds the gap between what the software does and what everyone believed it did.
Your team, usually, and we report them so they are actually actionable: reproduction steps, environment, expected against actual, severity and evidence. If you would rather we fix them too, we can, and where we are also doing the development the loop closes immediately.
That is the whole design problem with automation. Suites rot when tests are tied to fragile selectors and exact wording, and a suite that fails randomly gets ignored within weeks, which is worse than having none. We write against stable hooks, keep tests independent of each other, and treat a flaky test as a defect in the suite rather than something to re-run until it passes.
Yes. Security testing covers the common and damaging categories: authentication and authorisation flaws, injection, insecure direct object references, exposed data and dependency vulnerabilities. Accessibility is audited against WCAG with real keyboard and screen reader testing, not only an automated scan, because the scanners miss most of what actually blocks people.