Allow me to introduce you to the “testing pyramid”.

Let me give you a short break down of what it all means: As of today, the majority of testing effort still goes into End-To-End (E2E) testing, which means by default that most of the testing budget goes into E2E testing as well.

 

E2E Testing

 

Manual testing is by far dominant – accounting for over 70% of testing efforts. Bottom line: the “testing pyramid”, standing on its head, makes for a pretty unstable geometric body.

Even so, there are many reasons to love E2E testing. Developers like it, since it means testing is shifted to some “higher level” and someone else needs to do it. Executives like it, since it promises to be very close to the real user experience and “real” scenarios are covered. Testers like it, since they prefer testing through the UI over testing APIs – UIs are simply more concrete and tangible with business knowledge.

On the other hand however, E2E testing has some severe drawbacks, which become more and more critical:

  • E2E tests require a fully functioning system landscape, which defers E2E tests to the very end of the development/test cycle. The possibility of accelerating speed-to-market is fundamentally contradicted by this constraint.
  • E2E tests are very costly and time-consuming, exacerbating the pressure placed on the tests from a cost and time perspective.
  • Due to increasingly interconnected system landscapes with SOA architectures, E2E processes impact a broader variety of systems, pushing the beginning of testing even further along the project’s timeline.

Bottom line: having E2E tests as the major test stage drives towards a dead end.

The solution to this problem was introduced several years ago in the course of Agile development theory and is called the “inversion of the testing pyramid”:

 

Allow me to introduce you to the “testing pyramid”.

Let me give you a short break down of what it all means: As of today, the majority of testing effort still goes into End-To-End (E2E) testing, which means by default that most of the testing budget goes into E2E testing as well.

 

E2E Testing

 

In the “inverted testing pyramid””, E2E tests make up only a small portion of the test effort. Test automation is driven to its extreme, achieving automation rates of 90+%. The overall testing effort is reduced significantly.

Can the “inverted testing pyramid” deliver on its promises?

Tricentis has conducted several customer surveys and compared costs of error detection to answer that very question.  While the traditional “testing pyramid” costs 7.9 per detected error, the “inverted testing pyramid” costs an average 2.2; a cost reduction of 75%!

In regards to test-duration, which is critical to time-to-market requirements, the benefits of the inversion become even more apparent: test-cycles have been reduced from 8 weeks to 3 days, achieving even higher coverage of business risks; an efficiency gain of 90+ %.

With these convincing facts on hand, the inverted pyramid seems to be very desirable – but how do customers get there?

Wolfgang Platz, the Co-Founder and CPO of Tricentis has written a white paper detailing the steps required for “inverting the testing pyramid” and taming the E2E test beast. With Tosca, Tricentis offers the perfect platform to achieve this goal and make all your testers productive contributors to your success.

Download the End to End white paper here!

 

End to End White Paper

 

 

 

Tricentis Logo White Version
X