How senior QA engineers deliver better value for your budget

Did you know that nearly 70% of software projects fail to meet their original goals due to poor quality assurance? Or that 60% of defects in software are introduced during development and could be avoided with robust testing processes?

At first glance, it seems like a smart financial move: juniors cost less and can handle the same tasks, right? But the reality is far more nuanced, and the numbers don’t lie — hiring senior QA engineers actually saves money in the long run.

Let’s break it down with real examples and results we’ve seen over the years.

Experience matters: The real cost of junior vs. senior QA

Back in 2018, our company began working with a client to streamline their QA processes. Over two years, two of our senior QA engineers fully established processes, built automation from scratch using WDIO+TS (the gold standard for its time). By 2020, the client enjoyed:

However, in the latter half of 2020, the client decided to replace our senior engineers with two in-house junior engineers. The reason? To improve collaboration with the development team while reducing costs.

Four years later, the results told a sobering story: the client returned to us grappling with significant challenges, including a surge in quality complaints and nearly every other release being delayed by 1 to 12 days. We began with a thorough product assessment and can share key metrics from our engineers' report.

If you're involved in development, you can imagine the challenges the client faced. However, allow us to explain in more detail.

Why did quality decline?

The primary issue leading to a decline in overall project quality was that less experienced engineers were tasked with handling the same workload but:

a) took significantly longer, and

b) delivered work of lower quality.

They were unable to cover the necessary functionality with test cases → which resulted in fewer automated tests → and ultimately led to delayed releases.

As the technical debt grew, they had to compromise on quality by reducing the test coverage. Unfortunately, the less experienced engineers also struggled to maintain parallel execution of tests, which caused test runs to take much longer.

The true cost of QA decisions: Another case study in business impact

Let’s break this down with a concrete example.

Productivity and reliability compared

A senior QA engineer is capable of writing approximately three end-to-end (E2E) tests per day, achieving an impressive 90% test coverage. By comparison, a Junior QA Engineer manages just 1.4 E2E tests per day, resulting in a more modest 70% test coverage.

At first glance, this difference might seem manageable. After all, the Junior QA Engineer costs about half as much as the Senior QA Engineer and delivers roughly half the output — it appears balanced on paper.

However, the real distinction becomes clear when we examine test reliability. The Senior QA Engineer maintained a test flakiness rate of just 1%, ensuring the tests were highly stable and dependable. Meanwhile, the Junior QA Engineer’s flakiness rate was a staggering 9%, making their tests far less reliable.

Manual testing and test coverage gaps

When it came to manual testing, the Senior QA Engineer was significantly more efficient, writing test cases faster and ensuring all new features were covered. In contrast, the Junior QA Engineer often struggled to keep up, resulting in a 20% drop in test case coverage.

This inefficiency had downstream effects: tickets handled by the Junior QA Engineer spent considerably more time in the "testing" column, causing delays that rippled through the development process.

The bigger picture: Business impact

The most significant consequence? Post-release bugs tripled. These issues not only impacted product quality but also eroded client satisfaction — arguably the most critical metric for any business.

So, was the cost-saving decision to rely on less experienced QA Engineers worth it? The answer is a resounding NO. While the initial financial savings may have seemed attractive, the long-term cost of fixing poor-quality work — both in monetary terms and in damaged reputation — far outweighed the short-term benefit.

Lessons learned

This case illustrates a key truth: Cutting costs upfront often leads to higher expenses down the road. As someone who has navigated similar challenges over the past 15+ years, we’ve seen firsthand how these decisions can impact both product and business outcomes.

By taking a proactive approach, companies can avoid these pitfalls. With the right expertise, it’s possible to save not only money but also time and frustration while maintaining the high standards your customers expect.

At DeviQA, we’re not just service providers — we’re partners committed to delivering value. We strive to keep our clients in capable hands, helping them strike the right balance for long-term success.

Make the right investments today to ensure a better tomorrow — for your product, your team, and your business.