Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of Manual and Automated Testing in IT Projects of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses

Annotation. The study analyses official statistics of digital maturity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (robotics, AI, ERP/CRM) as proxy indicators of readiness for the implementation of automated tests and rapid payback. The data are further arranged and tabulated. Comparative content analysis of literature and practical data synthesized in a cost/benefit profile is carried out, which compares initial and ongoing costs, time characteristics, scalability, risks and limitations for manual and automated approaches. It was determined that the initial costs of manual testing are minimal (mainly the salary of a specialist tester), while automation includes licenses, infrastructure, and training. The profile provides an example of UFT One from $3,000 as a guideline for the license component. It was found that automation provides 10–100x faster testing and reduces labour costs by 75%, but requires annual script support up to 50% of the budget and is tool-dependent, while manual testing requires additional working hours and personnel. It was established that automation is more cost-effective in repetitive scenarios with regular releases, while short projects are more expedient to keep manual. Key findings form the basis for further economic calculations of ROI for digital quality assurance tools.