The document compares crowd testing and in-house QA testing. Crowd testing supplements in-house testing by testing apps across different locations, devices, and user types. This improves coverage and finds bugs that in-house teams may miss. While in-house QA teams provide close communication and knowledge of the system, crowd testing provides diverse real-world perspectives and is more scalable. An optimal strategy uses both approaches to comprehensively test software.

1. Difference Between Crowd Testing
& In-House QA

2. Introduction:
One of the major roadblocks to achieving adequate testing for
software applications is the huge investment required for testing an
app in real world conditions.
While the right test coverage can help identify defects and give true
product insights, inadequate coverage can lead to poor feedback
and increase the risks of costly software errors.
As development models move towards an agile environment where
releases are faster, the strain on in-house QA team increases.
Overstraining testing staff with sudden testing needs to keep in line
with tight release plans increases the risk of undetected bugs.

3. Difference Between
Crowd Testing & In-House QA
Companies are shifting from a traditional lab based
testing strategy to a more comprehensive testing
model that encompasses real world testing.
Crowd testing supplements In-house QA efforts to
achieve adequate test coverage. Both in-house QA
teams & crowd testers play a crucial role in the
modern testing strategy. Here is a comparison that
highlights the key pros & cons of in-house QA teams
& crowd testers:

4. 1) Accountability & Diversity
Having direct accountability makes it easier to train and guide full
time software testing teams. However, an in-house QA staff
trained & managed by the same manager, working in the same
lab are more likely to find similar issues on a software.
With crowd testing, you can assign testers from different locations
and demographics to work in different test environments. This
helps in testing the product in a real world scenario, making it
easier to find the bugs that users operating the app are likely to
find. This enables product teams to make additional
improvements that enriches the product quality.

5. 2) System Knowledge & Perspectives
The biggest merit of having an in-house QA team working
internally is the system knowledge they have which makes it
easier for them to know the application inside-out. However,
relying solely on an internal QA team makes it difficult to get a
fresh perspective about the product. They are more likely to
uncover issues found by power users than first time users of the
product.
An end user perspective can help product managers greatly in
improving app features in line with the customer expectations.
Crowd testers can help bring in this fresh insights.

6. 3) Proximity & Scalability
Having a reliable full time staff makes it easy for developers to
build relationships and communicate faster with QA teams.
This makes communication & bug fixes easier within the team.
However, it is difficult to scale your testing efforts with limited
In-house QA resources especially when the releases are faster.
Crowd testing can give product managers the flexibility to meet
peak season needs without huge investments in devices or full
time hires. Further, you can test multiple apps with a scalable
crowd testing testing team.

7. 4) Lab Testing Vs Real World Testing
In-house testing involves the use of emulators and in-house
devices for creating a test environment. It is not possible to
procure all the devices & create the fluctuation conditions that
exist in the real world inside a lab.
Critical issues that arise in real world scenarios can be found and
fixed with crowd testing. By relying on crowd testers, you can test
your application in various real world scenarios with different
combinations of devices, operating systems and software
versions.

8. 5) Cost & Time
In-house QA resources incur additional over head costs, expenses
for procuring devices and training. Depending solely on a full-time
staff to meet short development sprints can put considerable
strain on your finances & existing QA team. Further, finding &
recruiting the right talent in a short period of time is hard.
With crowd sourcing, product managers can get the help of testing
experts in the respective domain to test their applications.
Additionally, you can run shorter test cycles with an on-demand
QA team powered by crowd. This will help product managers to
align their testing efforts with their development goals without
straining existing QA teams or overshooting their testing budget.

9. Conclusion:
While crowd testing can never replace an internal QA
team, it definitely supplements the efforts of an
In-house QA team. A testing strategy that
encompasses the inputs of the In-house QA & the
real world insights of crowd testing gives product
managers a bird’s eye view of their software, making
it easy to access & fix risks in time.

10. About 99tests
99tests is a crowd testing platform to get your mobile & web apps
tested by top notch software testers. The platform provides
economical, and effective crowd-sourced testing solutions that
enable individuals and businesses to pursue excellence in software
technology.
Learn more about the software testing services provided by
99tests. Visit www.99tests.com . For more information, e-mail :
contact@99tests.com