Teams whose regression cycle cannot keep pace with releases
We automate only the journeys that must pass before a release first, and move the remainder to an overnight run.
Test Automation
A test automation service that builds and operates reliable automated assets across web, mobile, and APIs.
- Software QA
- Assessment
- Managed delivery
- Automation
01Overview
Service overview
Test Automation moves the regression checks that repeat on every release into automated test assets and keeps them running in the pipeline. The assets span web, mobile, and API layers, and execution is not the only thing automated: the way failures are sorted by cause is built with it, so results do not need re-interpreting by hand each time.
02Who it fits
Where it fits
Services that must continuously validate critical APIs and journeys
Core transaction APIs and the login and payment journeys are registered for scheduled runs as a standing watch.
Public agencies and public SI contractors who must keep regression results as acceptance evidence
Reports separate product defects from environment problems and stale scripts, and they are kept with run logs as acceptance evidence.
03What we deliver
Scope of delivery
01
Web, mobile, and API automation
Screens, devices, and server interfaces are each validated in the way that layer allows. The web runs on Playwright and Selenium, mobile on Appium, and the choice follows what the product is built on. Checks that used to run only through the UI move down to a faster and steadier layer.
02
Test data and environment control
Preconditions such as accounts, products, and orders are created at run time and rolled back afterwards. Results stop drifting because of data an earlier run left behind.
03
CI execution and result reporting
Tests are wired into the pipeline and each result is collected in one place with screenshots and logs attached. Whoever runs the release can check the outcome without asking anyone. Run records and re-verification history can also be kept in Qoretix, the platform IXC builds.
How the service works
Maintenance that keeps results trustworthy
Run with stable selectors, classify failures, repair their causes and verify the result again.
Stable selectors and shared structure
Repeatable runs and failure classification
Repair and verify
04Why this way
Points of difference
Each point lists the deliverable that backs it.
Change-resilient selectors and test structure
We design selectors and test structure to reduce script changes when the interface evolves. Dedicated automation identifiers, page objects that represent each screen, and shared action libraries work together. Changes are handled in the relevant layer, reducing repeated repairs across tests.
Backed by
- Risk map and validation priorities
- Test strategy and acceptance criteria
Client work · Artist platform
Artist platform, company A — reverse-engineering undocumented code, then verifying all of it
We reverse-engineered the code to recover the requirements, then verified every function against what we recovered.
Learn moreA maintenance loop with failure analysis
Failure analysis and maintenance are part of the operating routine, keeping automated results reliable over time. Failed runs are classified by cause, and unstable tests are isolated for repair. Clear ownership and a regular review schedule keep unresolved failures under active management.
Backed by
- Execution report and defect log
- Reusable test assets and a handover guide
Client work · Travel product management
Travel product management, company M — collector load and data consistency
We put load on the collector to find where it gives way, and checked consistency between the database and what the collector returned.
Learn more05How to start
From first call to kickoff
Every stage ends with an agreed scope and a deliverable in your hands.
Step 01
Assess risk
We review product flows and the release calendar together and name the highest-impact failure points within five business days of kickoff.
DeliverableRisk map and validation priorities
Step 02
Design evidence
We link requirements, tests, defects, and the release decision in one traceability sheet and fix the acceptance criteria within two weeks of delivery starts.
DeliverableTest strategy and acceptance criteria
Step 03
Execute and improve
We run validation against the agreed criteria and report defects and residual risk weekly in one fixed format.
DeliverableExecution report and defect log
Step 04
Hand over and embed
We hand test assets and working practices to the internal team and stay available for questions for four weeks afterwards.
DeliverableReusable test assets and a handover guide
06Contract options
Ways to work together
- Remote delivery
07Service levels
Service levels
5business days
Risk map fixed after kickoff
Weekly
Defect and residual-risk report
4weeks
Questions answered after handover
Global distributed storage, company K — automating regression
On the same product, the regression checks repeated at every deployment moved into automated test assets.
What we doCritical journeys were automated first and wired into the pipeline so every deployment ran the same checks.
What it leavesWhat people used to repeat by hand became an execution record, and the scripts stayed with the team after handover.
Artist platform, company A — reverse-engineering undocumented code, then verifying all of it
The development work we inherited had no documentation, only code.
What we doWe reverse-engineered the code to recover the requirements, then verified every function against what we recovered.
What it leavesWhat the product does, and how, went into documentation, and the point top-up and management feature was built on top of it.
Travel product management, company M — collector load and data consistency
About 1,900 travel products were being maintained by hand, one spreadsheet row at a time.
What we doWe put load on the collector to find where it gives way, and checked consistency between the database and what the collector returned.
What it leavesThe failures we found were in the data, not the features, and product-change handling now runs on its own on top of that.
Global test tool, company T — Japanese localization QA for a no-code test tool
A no-code test automation tool was heading for its Japanese launch and needed a team to own the localization verification.
What we doWe built and ran some 1,000 Japanese verification cases, hunting the places where wording and behavior diverge.
What it leavesSome 150 localization defects were caught before launch over seven months, and the verification cases remain as an asset for the next version.
Mobile app, company R — pre-release app security and server verification
An iOS and Android app heading for release needed its security checked from a position independent of the builders.
What we doWe verified the app and its servers together against some 70 security check items, reporting defects with severity and reproduction steps.
What it leavesSome 20 defects were found across the app and servers, and every one was confirmed fixed before release.
Ongoing
More pages, lighter operations: how IXC rebuilt its multilingual website
Built so that adding pages and languages does not make the site harder to run. IXC redesigned its website from MDX-based content operations to multilingual checks, cloud deployment, and security.
09FAQ
Frequently asked questions
We maintain them at first and hand the role over at transfer. How often failures are reviewed and who repairs the scripts are agreed at kickoff, and any part your team cannot absorb can stay with us under a maintenance agreement.
We divide ownership first: what the in-house team keeps and what we take over is written down, while defect severity criteria and the reporting format stay unified so the release decision rests on one set of evidence.
Yes. We weigh run frequency against maintenance cost and automate the highest-priority journeys first, replacing volatile screen areas with API-level checks or leaving them to manual validation.
You receive the deliverable listed for each stage exactly as it is. Reports come as a document plus the underlying data, and test cases and automation scripts are handed over together with repository access.
Remote delivery is the default, and on-site work is also available. If the test environment is accessible only from your internal network, we first define account access and data-export restrictions, then agree on on-site staffing and duration.
We report defects and remaining risks weekly in a consistent format. Each defect includes severity and reproduction conditions, alongside release readiness, so approvers can decide from the same evidence.
We share the findings from the first stage, then agree scope and schedule on that basis before delivery. A finished request for proposal is not required: the current environment and the outcome you want are enough to start.
Software Quality & Release
2026-09-26 · 19 min read
Turning production errors into regression tests for the next release
To turn a production error into a regression test, extract the conditions needed to reproduce it, define expected behavior, and verify that the faulty version violates that expectation while the fixed version satisfies it.
Software Quality & Release
2026-06-11 · 15 min read
What should set regression test scope, if not the size of the code change?
A Change Impact × Regression Scope Matrix — twelve axes across reach, uncertainty, and controllability — for choosing Focused, Expanded, or Broad regression, plus a decision record form.
Software Quality & Release
2026-04-23 · 15 min read
What should test automation take first, and what stays with people?
Prioritize tests through twelve dimensions and three gates for value, trust, and responsibility. Distinguish automation first, automation with human review, human-led testing, and checks that should not be automated yet.
12Related resources
Resources for this service
Guides and checklists you can use during review and kickoff.
See all resources
Guides
2026.09.04
A guide to sizing and pricing outsourced software QA
Why a QA quote lands where it does, broken into six variables and the direction each one moves the effort.
Guides
2026.09.10
Automated test failure analysis, quarantine and return-to-service worksheets
Preserve the first failure when a test passes on retry, and connect investigation, temporary verification and the evidence needed to restore the test.
Contact
Contact us
Tell us your current environment and target outcome, and our team will review it and reply.
Direct line
Phone lines are open weekdays 09:00–18:00
ServiceTest Automation
Collection and use of personal information
- Purpose · Responding to and following up on this inquiry
- Items · Name, company, work email, message, visit source (first page visited, referring site domain, campaign parameters)
- Retention · 36 months from the date consent is given
You may decline; the inquiry cannot be submitted without consent.
More ways to explore