Margarita Simonova is the founder of ILoveMyQA.com.
AI testing tools are becoming part of the normal QA conversation. They can generate test cases, help with automation, summarize bugs, review logs, find visual changes and even suggest edge cases. For a team that is trying to release faster, this sounds very attractive. Most QA teams are already overloaded. Most engineering teams want faster feedback. Most business leaders want shorter release cycles.
So the temptation is obvious: Buy an AI testing tool and expect quality to improve. But this is where teams need to be careful.
Buying an AI testing tool is not the same as building a stronger QA process. A tool can create more tests, but it does not automatically create more confidence. It can make the dashboard look more active, but it does not always tell you whether the right risks were tested.
AI Can Help QA Move Faster
I do not think QA teams should avoid AI testing tools. If used well, they can be very helpful.
AI can help testers create first drafts of test cases. It can suggest scenarios that a team may not think about right away. It can summarize long bug reports or logs. It can help identify duplicate issues. It can assist with repetitive checks and reduce some of the manual work that slows teams down.
For smaller QA teams, this can be especially useful. Not every company has a large automation team. Not every project has enough time to build perfect test coverage from scratch. If AI can help a tester move faster, organize information better or ask better questions, that is valuable. AI can support judgment. It should not replace it.
The Risk Is False Confidence
The biggest risk with AI testing tools is not that they will fail completely. The bigger risk is that they will look useful enough to trust too quickly.
A tool may generate 100 test cases from a requirement. But are they the right 100? Do they cover the actual customer journey? Do they understand the business rules? Do they know which flow affects revenue, compliance, user trust or support volume?
For example, an AI tool may generate tests for a checkout flow: add product to cart, apply discount, enter shipping, complete payment. That is useful. But the real risk may be somewhere more specific: a discount that should not apply to subscription products, a tax rule that changes by province, a payment error that only appears on mobile Safari or an analytics event that affects business reporting.
That is where experienced QA still matters. The tool can create the starting point. The QA team has to decide what is actually important.
Do Not Measure The Tool By Output
One mistake leaders make is measuring AI testing tools by volume. How many tests did it create? How many scripts did it generate? How much time did it save? How many issues did it flag?
Those numbers are not useless, but they are not enough. A better question is: Did this tool help us find meaningful risk earlier?
If the answer is no, then the tool may only be creating more noise. More tests are not always better tests. More findings are not always better findings. More automation is not always more release confidence.
A useful AI testing tool should help the QA team understand the product better. It should make investigation faster. It should make gaps more visible. It should help the team explain risk to product and engineering in a clearer way.
If it only creates more artifacts, it is not really improving quality.
What Leaders Should Ask Before Trusting The Tool
Before adopting an AI testing tool, leaders should ask simple questions.
What is the tool allowed to access? Can it use customer data, production data or sensitive information? Who reviews the tests it creates? Can a human easily understand why it flagged an issue? Can the team reproduce the failures it finds? Does it connect tests to real business flows?
These questions are not meant to slow teams down. They are meant to prevent a false sense of safety. The goal of QA is not to prove that testing happened. The goal is to reduce the chance that important problems reach real users. If an AI tool helps with that, it is worth considering. If it only makes the process look more advanced, it may become another expensive distraction.
Where AI Testing Tools Work Best
In my opinion, the best use of AI in QA today is as an assistant to experienced testers. Let AI create the first draft. Let AI summarize information. Let AI suggest risks. Let AI help maintain repetitive checks. Let AI compare screenshots, logs or behavior.
But let humans decide what matters. A tester understands context that a tool may miss. They know when a feature is technically working but still confusing for the user. They know when a bug looks small but affects a critical business flow. They know when a green result does not feel trustworthy.
That kind of judgment is still the core of good QA.
The New QA Responsibility
As AI testing tools become more common, QA leaders need to become more involved in how these tools are selected and used. That means setting boundaries around data. It means deciding which areas are safe for AI assistance. It means reviewing generated tests before they become part of the release process. It means checking whether the tool is improving real quality outcomes, not just creating more activity.
The question should not be: “Can this tool automate testing?” The question should be: “Can this tool help us make better release decisions?” That is a much higher standard.
AI testing tools can be powerful, but they are not magic. They still need structure, review and ownership. They still need QA judgment around them. In software quality, trust cannot be bought through a subscription. It has to be tested.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
