DEV Community: AutomationDataCamp

8 traps in the ISTQB CTFL exam (and how to spot them in time)

AutomationDataCamp — Fri, 13 Nov 2026 14:00:00 +0000

The ISTQB Foundation (CTFL) exam does not try to trick you. Its wording is just precise: a word such as "NOT" or "best" changes the right answer. Most candidates who fail do not lack knowledge; they read too fast, or keep the everyday meaning of a word.

TL;DR

40 questions, 26 to pass (65%), 60 minutes, or 75 minutes with the 25% extension if you sit it in a language other than your native one.
No negative marking: never leave a question blank.
Eight traps below, each tied to a section of the syllabus.
Aim for 75% on mock exams before you book, to keep a safety margin.

The 8 traps

The hidden negation. "Which of the following statements is NOT true?" Under pressure, candidates tick the first true statement. Reread the question right before confirming.
"The best answer". Several options may look correct; only one fits the situation best. Find the word in the question that makes the difference: context, objective or risk.
Everyday meaning instead of the glossary. A human error produces a defect, which may cause a failure when executed. The three words are not interchangeable (syllabus 1.2.3).
Testing vs debugging. Testing triggers failures or finds defects; debugging finds the cause, analyzes it and fixes it. Debugging is not a testing activity (syllabus 1.1.2).
Test levels vs test types. Component, integration, system and acceptance are levels; functional, non-functional, black-box and white-box are types. A question may mix both lists.
2-value vs 3-value boundary analysis. The syllabus describes both. Check which one the question asks for before counting test cases.
Several invalid partitions in one test case. Since version 4.0.1, the syllabus states that invalid partitions are tested one at a time, so that one defect does not mask another (4.2.1).
Statement vs branch coverage. 100% branch coverage implies 100% statement coverage, not the other way round. A classic K2 question.

A time plan for exam day

The ISTQB tables allow about 1 minute per K1 or K2 question and 3 minutes per K3 question. With 8 K1, 24 K2 and 8 K3 questions, that is about 56 minutes out of 60: barely 4 minutes of margin.

So make a first quick pass on the K1 and K2 questions, flag the ones that need a calculation, then come back to them. Never stay more than 3 minutes on a question during the first pass. Before submitting, check that nothing is blank: at worst, rule out the impossible options and choose among the rest.

When to book the real exam

Practise the six K3 objectives on paper (equivalence partitioning, boundary values, decision tables, state transitions, ATDD, three-point estimation), then take timed mock exams and review every mistake. ISTQB publishes official sample exams on its certification page, and our free ISTQB mock exam follows the same 40-question format with a score per chapter.

Book once you consistently score above 75%. The official pass mark is 65%, and that 10-point margin absorbs stress and unexpected wording.

Over to you

Which trap cost you points on a mock exam? Is there one you would add to this list?

Sources: ISTQB Exam Structure & Rules Tables v1.18 · ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0.1 · ISTQB CTFL certification page

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above (checked on November 11, 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on ISTQB CTFL certification.

ISTQB CTFL syllabus 4.0.1: what actually changed (and what you can ignore)

AutomationDataCamp — Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:00:00 +0000

If you are preparing the ISTQB Foundation (CTFL) with notes or a course written for version 4.0, you have probably wondered whether syllabus 4.0.1 makes them obsolete. Short answer: no. But a few changes can turn up in an exam question, and they are worth ten minutes of your time.

TL;DR

Syllabus 4.0.1 is dated 15 September 2024. It is an errata of 4.0 (21 April 2023): same six chapters, same exam structure.
As of 11 November 2026, it is the latest version we found on istqb.org. The official exam tables (v1.18, 27 May 2026) still refer to "CTFL v4.0".
Three new keywords are now examinable at K1 level: test process, traceability and test strategy.
One content rule is worth remembering: invalid partitions are tested one at a time (4.2.1).

Where the changes are listed

Appendix C of the syllabus ("Release Notes") lists every change between 4.0 and 4.0.1. The list is long, but most items are wording fixes. Here is what matters for a candidate.

1. Six objectives reworded

Six learning objectives were reworded to match the ISTQB glossary. Two examples:

FL-2.1.5 "Explain the shift-left approach" becomes "Explain shift left".
FL-1.4.1 moves from "summarize" to "explain" the test activities.

The knowledge expected does not really change. What changes is the word you will read in the question.

2. Vocabulary aligned with the glossary

"Work products" replaces "artifacts", "testware" replaces "test documentation", and terms such as "risk level", "test progress reports" and "test completion reports" are now used consistently. The exam uses glossary definitions, not everyday meanings, so learn these exact terms.

3. ISO 25010 (2023) names

The syllabus keeps the original names of the quality characteristics, but section 2.2.2 now adds the new names from ISO 25010:2023: interaction capability (formerly usability) and flexibility (formerly portability). If you see one of these names in a question, you now know what it maps to.

4. Three new keywords

Test process and traceability were added to chapter 1, test strategy to chapter 5. Every keyword listed at the top of a chapter is examinable at K1 level, even when no learning objective mentions it (syllabus, section 0.5). Add them to your flashcards.

5. Content corrections

Invalid partitions are tested in isolation (4.2.1), so that one defect does not mask another. This one is the most likely to appear in a K3 question about equivalence partitioning.
The model in state transition testing is now called a state diagram (4.2.4).
The relation between test pyramid layers and test isolation is corrected (5.1.6): the higher the layer, the lower the isolation.

What you can ignore

The structure is unchanged: 6 chapters, 1,135 minutes of minimum training time, the same six K3 objectives and the same 40-question exam. Material written for 4.0 remains valid. Read Appendix C once, add the three keywords and the rule on invalid partitions, and move on to practice.

I keep a chapter-by-chapter breakdown (training time, content, K-levels) in the full article on our site. Teams that hire testers often list CTFL in their job ads, which is one reason we also run QA recruitment alongside training.

Over to you

Did you prepare with 4.0 material? Which change in 4.0.1 would you have missed without reading Appendix C?

Sources: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0.1 · ISTQB Exam Structure & Rules Tables v1.18

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above (checked on November 11, 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on ISTQB CTFL certification.

What ISTQB Foundation training really costs in 2027 (and 4 things to check before you pay)

AutomationDataCamp — Wed, 11 Nov 2026 14:00:00 +0000

The ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL, syllabus v4.0) is the entry-level certification in software testing: more than one million certifications issued in over 130 countries, according to ISTQB. Finding a training provider is easy. Comparing two of them is not, because the prices you see rarely cover the same thing.

I checked the public prices of French providers on November 11, 2026. Here is what they show, and what to look at before you pay.

The prices, as published

Provider	Published price	Duration	Exam
Sparks	€2,400 excl. VAT	3 days	held at the end of the session
IB Formation	€2,460 excl. VAT	3 days (21 h)	included
Néosoft Training	€2,420 (VAT not specified)	3 days	included
Dawan	from €1,390 excl. VAT per day	3 days	"if included in the funding"

So the going rate for a classic 3-day course is about €2,400 excl. VAT, exam included. These are 2026 rates taken from each provider's own page; check them again before you enrol.

4 things to check before comparing two prices

With or without VAT. €2,400 excl. VAT is €2,880 for an individual paying French VAT at 20%. Companies recover VAT, individuals do not.
Exam included or not. Most 3-day courses include it. Not all do, and some make it depend on how the course is funded.
A second attempt. If you fail, do you pay for the exam again, or is a retake included?
Practice after the course. How many full mock exams do you get, and does anyone explain your mistakes?

The pass mark decides how you should study

You need 65% to pass: 26 correct answers out of 40, in 60 minutes (source: ASTQB). ISTQB publishes no official pass rate; ASTQB estimates it at about 71%.

That pass mark is why the "practice after the course" line matters more than the number of teaching days. Two well-known reviews of learning research point the same way:

A meta-analysis of 225 studies in PNAS found that students in traditional lectures were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in active learning (Freeman et al., 2014).
A review of ten learning techniques rated practice testing and distributed practice as the two most useful (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

For the CTFL, that translates into: little lecturing, many questions in the exam format, immediate correction of every mistake, and practice spread over several days rather than crammed the night before. A simple rule I use: sit the real exam only once you score above 75% on timed mock exams, not 65%. The margin absorbs exam-day stress and the trick wording of negative questions.

If you want to see where you stand before choosing anything, the official ISTQB sample exams are free, and we also publish ISTQB exam prep ebooks.

Where our own course fits

Full disclosure: I run AutomationDataCamp. Our next CTFL session is taught in French, online, on December 5-6, 2026 (two days of live sessions, then up to 10 practice evenings on the platform), at €450 VAT incl. with the official exam and a second attempt. The full comparison, with sources and links to each provider's page, is in the original article.

What did your ISTQB Foundation preparation cost you, and was the exam included? I am curious how much prices differ outside France.

Sources: ISTQB: Certified Tester Foundation Level · ASTQB: What is the passing score for ISTQB? · ASTQB: How many people pass ISTQB? (2025) · Freeman et al. (2014), PNAS · Dunlosky et al. (2013), Psychological Science in the Public Interest · Provider prices: Sparks, IB Formation, Néosoft Training, Dawan, accessed November 11, 2026

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above (checked on November 11, 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on QA training programs.

ISTQB CTFL v4.0 : d'où viennent vraiment les 40 questions de l'examen

AutomationDataCamp — Tue, 10 Nov 2026 09:19:53 +0000

Le Certified Tester Foundation Level de l'ISTQB (CTFL, syllabus v4.0) est un examen de 40 questions à choix multiples. Vous avez 60 minutes et il faut 26 bonnes réponses (65 %). Si vous ne passez pas l'examen dans votre langue maternelle, vous avez 25 % de temps en plus.

La plupart des guides donnent la même place à chaque chapitre. L'examen, lui, ne le fait pas.

Répartition des 40 questions

Chapitre	Thème	Questions
1	Fondamentaux du test	8
2	Test tout au long du cycle de développement	6
3	Test statique	4
4	Analyse et conception des tests	11
5	Gestion des activités de test	9
6	Outils de test	2

Les chapitres 4 et 5 pèsent 20 des 40 questions et contiennent les huit questions d'application (niveau K3). Le chapitre 6 en vaut deux : lui consacrer un tiers de votre temps est un mauvais calcul.

À quoi ressemble une question K3

K3 veut dire qu'il faut appliquer une technique, pas réciter une définition. Exemple, l'analyse des valeurs limites :

Un champ accepte un âge de 18 à 65 ans inclus. Quelles valeurs donne l'analyse aux limites à 2 valeurs ?

Réponse : 17, 18, 65, 66 (chaque limite et sa plus proche valeur de l'autre côté). Avec 3 valeurs, on ajoute le voisin à l'intérieur de l'intervalle : 17, 18, 19, 64, 65, 66.

Si vous savez le faire à la main, avec aussi les partitions d'équivalence, les tables de décision et les transitions d'état, vous couvrez le cœur du chapitre 4.

Comment répartir vos heures (ma suggestion, pas une règle ISTQB)

Donnez au chapitre 4 la plus grosse part, avec des exercices et pas seulement de la lecture.
Lisez une fois attentivement les chapitres 1 et 2 : les questions de vocabulaire sont des points faciles si vous connaissez les définitions.
Gardez les chapitres 3 et 6 pour une dernière passe.
Faites des examens blancs tôt. Visez 75 % aux examens blancs avant le vrai : la barre est à 65 % et il vous faut de la marge.
Entraînez-vous dans les mêmes conditions : 40 questions, 60 minutes.

Si vous voulez être accompagné

AutomationDataCamp propose une préparation CTFL v4.0 : 2 × 6 h en ligne sur un week-end (5 et 6 décembre 2026), puis des séances d'entraînement et d'examens blancs. Elle est donnée en français. Le tarif comprend l'examen officiel avec une deuxième tentative, en offre d'ouverture à 450 € TTC au lieu de 800 € (tarif des sessions suivantes) en financement personnel, paiement en 1 fois.

Détails et programme : préparation ISTQB CTFL v4.0.

Si vous préférez réviser seul, la répartition par chapitre ci-dessus est ce qui vaut le plus la peine d'être gardé.

Quelle partie de l'examen vous inquiète le plus : les questions d'application du chapitre 4, ou celles de vocabulaire ? Dites-le en commentaire.

Sources : syllabus et structure d'examen ISTQB CTFL v4.0 (istqb.org). Rédigé avec l'aide d'une IA et relu par l'équipe AutomationDataCamp. Plus d'informations sur automationdatacamp.com.

ISTQB CTFL v4.0: where the 40 exam questions really come from

AutomationDataCamp — Tue, 10 Nov 2026 09:19:45 +0000

The ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL, syllabus v4.0) is a 40-question multiple-choice exam. You have 60 minutes and need 26 correct answers (65%). If you do not take it in your native language, you get 25% extra time.

Most study guides give every chapter the same attention. The exam does not.

How the 40 questions are split

Chapter	Topic	Questions
1	Fundamentals of testing	8
2	Testing throughout the software development lifecycle	6
3	Static testing	4
4	Test analysis and design	11
5	Managing the test activities	9
6	Test tools	2

Chapters 4 and 5 are 20 of the 40 questions, and they hold all eight application questions (level K3). Chapter 6 is worth two questions. Spending a third of your time on tools is a bad trade.

What a K3 question looks like

K3 means you must apply a technique, not recall a definition. Example, boundary value analysis:

A field accepts an age from 18 to 65 inclusive. Which test values does 2-value boundary analysis give?

The answer is 17, 18, 65, 66: each boundary, plus its nearest value on the other side. With 3-value analysis you also take the neighbour inside the range: 17, 18, 19, 64, 65, 66.

If you can do this by hand, with equivalence partitioning, decision tables and state transitions too, you are covering the heart of chapter 4.

A way to spend your hours (my suggestion, not an ISTQB rule)

Give chapter 4 the biggest share, and do exercises, not only reading.
Read chapters 1 and 2 once carefully: vocabulary questions are quick points if you know the definitions.
Keep chapters 3 and 6 for a final pass.
Take mock exams early. Aim for 75% on mocks before the real exam, since the pass mark is 65% and you want margin.
Train under the same conditions: 40 questions, 60 minutes.

If you want a guided path

At AutomationDataCamp we run a CTFL v4.0 preparation: 2 × 6 hours online over a weekend (5-6 December 2026), then practice sessions and mock exams. It is taught in French. The price includes the official exam with a second attempt, launch offer: €450 VAT incl. instead of €800 (price of later sessions) if you fund it yourself, paid in full.

Details and the programme: ISTQB CTFL v4.0 preparation.

If you prefer to study alone, the chapter split above is the part worth keeping.

Which part of the exam worries you most: the application questions of chapter 4, or the vocabulary ones? Tell me in the comments.

Sources: ISTQB CTFL v4.0 syllabus and exam structure (istqb.org). Drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by the AutomationDataCamp team. More at automationdatacamp.com.

3 Playwright tests that pass but prove nothing (with a practice repo to fix them)

AutomationDataCamp — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 20:33:30 +0000

A green test is not a proof. Here are three Playwright tests that pass, and still let a bug through.

I put them in a small public repo so you can run them, break the app on purpose, and see which test notices.

The setup

The repo has a tiny shop app with no dependencies: two products (keyboard 50, mouse 25), a promo code ADC10 that gives 10% off, a confirmation message, and an empty-cart message.

Two switches help you experiment:

LATENCE=1200 slows the products API, to expose timing mistakes.
BUG=remise disables the ADC10 discount, to expose tests that never check the total.

Exercise 1: the test that checks the message, not the result

The original test applies ADC10 and checks that "Code appliqué." appears. With BUG=remise, the message still appears but the total stays at 50,00 €. The test passes.

The fix: assert the total (45,00 €), and check that an invalid code leaves it at 50,00 €.

Exercise 2: the fixed sleep followed by a one-shot count

The original waits 500 ms, then reads count() once. With LATENCE=1200, the list is not loaded yet and the test fails, but only on a slow run. A flaky test is a test you stop trusting.

The fix: await expect(page.locator('#produits li')).toHaveCount(2). The assertion retries until it is true, or times out.

Exercise 3: the AI-style test

It swallows errors in a try/catch and checks count() === 1. It looks thorough, and it can never fail for the right reason.

The fix: role-based locators, the total, the confirmation message, and the empty-cart case.

Run it

git clone https://github.com/automationdatacamp/adc-playwright-practice-lab
cd adc-playwright-practice-lab
npm ci
npx playwright install chromium
npm test

Each exercise has an avant.spec.js (before) and a solutions/NN/apres.spec.js (after) with a short explanation. The CI runs all 8 tests on GitHub Actions. MIT license.

The statements and explanations in the repo are in French. If you want an English version, tell me in the comments.

Repo: https://github.com/automationdatacamp/adc-playwright-practice-lab

Accessibility testing in the US: the DOJ rule, the WebAIM Million, and where testers start

AutomationDataCamp — Sun, 25 Oct 2026 14:00:00 +0000

Accessibility used to be a topic for a few specialists. In the US it is turning into a testing job with a legal backdrop: a federal rule for state and local government websites, long-standing ADA guidance for businesses, and a yearly study that keeps finding the same defects on almost every home page. Here is what those sources say and what an accessibility tester actually checks.

TL;DR

The DOJ Title II rule: state and local governments must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content and mobile apps. Current deadlines: April 26, 2027 (populations of 50,000 or more) and April 26, 2028 (smaller).
WebAIM Million 2026: 95.9% of one million home pages had detected WCAG 2 failures, 56.1 errors per page on average. Low contrast text came first (83.9%).
Businesses: DOJ guidance says the ADA applies to the goods and services of public accommodations, web included, and names WCAG as helpful technical guidance.

What the DOJ rule says

On April 24, 2024, the Federal Register published the Department of Justice's final rule under Title II of the ADA, which covers state and local governments. It names WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard for web content and mobile apps.

The ADA.gov fact sheet currently lists two compliance dates: April 26, 2027 for governments with a population of 50,000 or more, and April 26, 2028 for smaller governments and special district governments. The larger group's date was extended by an interim final rule published on April 20, 2026. Dates can move, so check ADA.gov before you plan around one.

What matters for testers is the standard itself. A rule that points to WCAG 2.1 AA turns "is this site accessible?" into a list of success criteria that can be checked, page by page, and re-checked at every release.

What about private businesses?

The DOJ's web guidance, dated March 18, 2022, says that the ADA's requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges or activities offered by public accommodations, including on the web. It names WCAG as an existing technical standard and describes it as helpful guidance for making web features accessible. The same page notes that it does not reflect the Title II rule of April 2024.

So for businesses there is guidance, not a Title II-style deadline. This is not legal advice, and whether a given website must meet a given standard is a question for a lawyer. WCAG is simply the common yardstick in both cases.

What the WebAIM Million finds

WebAIM runs automated checks on the home pages of one million websites every year. In the 2026 edition:

95.9% of home pages had detected WCAG 2 failures, with an average of 56.1 errors per page;
low contrast text appeared on 83.9% of pages;
missing alternative text for images on 53.1%, and missing form input labels on 51%;
empty links on 46.3% and empty buttons on 30.6%.

Two cautions. These are failures an automated tool can detect on home pages, so they understate the real picture: many problems only show up when a person tries the page with a keyboard or a screen reader. And the study measures the web at large, not US sites specifically. I also looked for a reliable, recent count of accessibility testing jobs in the US and did not find one I could cite, so I am not quoting a number.

What an accessibility tester checks

Keyboard use. Can every control be reached without a mouse, in a logical order, with a visible focus?
Screen readers. Are headings, form labels, alternative text and error messages announced correctly?
Contrast. Under WCAG 2.1 AA, regular text needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5 to 1 against its background (3 to 1 for large text).
Tools plus manual checks. An automated scan finds part of the defects; the rest needs hands-on testing.
Reporting. A useful report names the criterion, the page, the severity and a fix the team can apply.

Notice how closely this list follows the WebAIM findings: contrast, missing labels, empty links and buttons, missing alternative text. The most common defects are also the most testable ones.

Ten minutes to find your first defect

Put the mouse aside and press Tab. If the focus disappears, jumps around, or lands on something you cannot activate with the keyboard, you have already found a defect. Then turn on a screen reader and listen to the same page. Ten minutes of this teaches more than a long checklist, and it is the habit a tester builds first. A written report turns it into something a developer can act on: where, which criterion, how to reproduce, how to fix.

If you want help turning checks like these into a plan for a whole product, ADC also offers software quality and testing consulting, which includes accessibility testing alongside test strategy, automation, performance and security.

The A11y Test specialisation

The "Accessibility Tester" specialisation is one of the QA specialisations on the QA specialisation tracks. That page announces WCAG 2.1, screen readers and contrast; 399 hours over 3 months, 100% online; the next session in November; one-on-one mentoring, 6 months of platform access and 24 months of replays. It does not detail the programme beyond those topics. Exact dates, prerequisites and the language of the sessions are confirmed with an advisor, and ADC is a French-language training organisation, so ask before enrolling. No certification is promised for this specialisation.

Prices: €1,500 incl. VAT for individuals, a launch price payable in 1 to 4 interest-free instalments; €7,500 incl. VAT for companies. ADC is not currently eligible for French public funding such as CPF or France Travail, and it does not hold the Qualiopi certification that OPCO funding requires. No job or salary is guaranteed.

Over to you

When did you last run a full keyboard-only pass on your own product, and what was the first defect you found? Do you treat accessibility as a release gate in your team, or as a ticket someone picks up when time allows?

Sources: ADA.gov: Fact Sheet, New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps (Title II rule published April 24, 2024; interim final rule April 20, 2026; accessed October 19, 2026) · ADA.gov: Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA (March 18, 2022) · WebAIM: The WebAIM Million, 2026 edition (accessed October 19, 2026) · W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above, as cited in the original article (checked on 19 October 2026). This is not legal advice.

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on QA training programs.

Security testing for QA engineers: what Verizon, IBM and OWASP 2025 tell us

AutomationDataCamp — Sat, 24 Oct 2026 13:00:00 +0000

Security work is moving closer to testing. Breaches are costly, attackers often get in through known weaknesses, and US employers keep hiring in the field. Here are three public sources (Verizon, IBM and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics), plus the OWASP Top 10, and what a tester can take from them.

One rule before anything else: security testing is done only on systems you are authorised to test, with the owner's written permission. Everything below rests on that rule.

TL;DR

Verizon DBIR 2026: vulnerability exploitation started 31% of breaches, the most common way in.
IBM 2026: a breach costs $11.5 million on average in the United States ($4.99 million worldwide).
BLS: information security analyst jobs are projected to grow 21% from 2025 to 2035.
OWASP: the current Top 10 is the 2025 edition.

How attackers get in: Verizon's 2026 report

The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2026 covers incidents from 1 November 2024 to 31 October 2025. Its headline: exploiting a software vulnerability is now the leading way into a network, at 31% of breaches, ahead of stolen credentials. Help Net Security reports that this is the first time in the report's 19 years that credential theft has lost the top spot, and that only 26% of the vulnerabilities on CISA's "known exploited" list had been fully fixed across the 13,000 organisations polled, down from 38% the year before.

For a tester, the message is simple: a good share of breaches start with a flaw that someone could have found earlier. Finding it earlier is the job.

What a breach costs: IBM's 2026 report

IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026 puts the worldwide average at $4.99 million, up 12% and a record. According to a summary by the law firm Baker Donelson (report published 30 July 2026), the US average is $11.5 million per incident, up 11%, more than double the global figure. Treat averages with care: a small company is unlikely to see a bill that size, and the mix of cases changes from year to year.

The job market: what the BLS shows

The BLS tracks information security analysts. Its page, last modified on 27 August 2026, shows about 192,900 jobs in 2025, a median pay of $129,180 per year (May 2025), and projected growth of 21% from 2025 to 2035.

A caution: "information security analyst" is not the same job as "security tester", and these figures say nothing about what a graduate of any course would earn or whether they would be hired. They show where demand for security skills is heading, no more.

The OWASP Top 10: the 2025 edition

OWASP maintains the standard list of web application risks. The current version is the 2025 edition:

A01 Broken Access Control
A02 Security Misconfiguration
A03 Software Supply Chain Failures
A04 Cryptographic Failures
A05 Injection
A06 Insecure Design
A07 Authentication Failures
A08 Software or Data Integrity Failures
A09 Security Logging and Alerting Failures
A10 Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions

Software supply chain failures and the mishandling of exceptional conditions are the new ideas compared with the previous edition. OWASP notes that "Injection" runs from cross-site scripting (frequent, usually lower impact) to SQL injection (rarer, high impact).

Reading the list as a tester

The list is not a checklist to tick off once. It tells you where to look first. OWASP says that on average 3.73% of the applications tested had at least one of the 40 weaknesses grouped under Broken Access Control, which stays at number one. Security Misconfiguration moved up from fifth place in 2021 to second, because more of an application's behaviour now lives in configuration. Software Supply Chain Failures has the fewest occurrences in OWASP's data, but the highest average exploit and impact scores from known vulnerabilities, and OWASP believes testing has not yet caught up in this area.

For a QA team this has a practical meaning. Access control and configuration are checked with ordinary test techniques: roles, permissions, environments, default settings. You do not need to be an attacker to start. You need a method, a clear scope and the habit of asking "what if this user should not see this?"

What a security tester actually does

A security tester asks, on an authorised environment, the questions an attacker would ask. Can one user open another user's data by changing an ID in the URL? Does a form field accept code? Does an error message say too much? Are sessions and passwords well protected?

Turn a risk list into test cases, starting from the OWASP Top 10.
Test inputs: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF.
Write a clear finding: what was tested, what was found, how to reproduce it, what the risk is.
Stay in scope: defined perimeter, written authorisation, a test environment.

The method (preparing, executing, reporting) is the same as in any testing job. A course is not enough to make a specialist: hands-on experience matters just as much.

Where to start on an API

Broken access control is often easiest to see at the API level, where you can change an identifier or a role in a request and check what comes back. If you want that kind of check automated in a pipeline, ADC's API testing services cover functional, contract, negative, auth and performance tests, run remotely in English or French with the code in your repository.

The Sec Test specialisation

For testers who want a structured path, the Security Tester specialisation track lists: OWASP Top 10, SQL injection, XSS and CSRF; 399 hours over 3 months; 100% online with mentoring included; 6-month platform access and 24-month replays; next session in December, with the exact date confirmed with an advisor.

Courses are taught in French, so check that this fits you before you enrol. Certifications for the specialisations are still to be confirmed with ADC, so none is promised for this track. Launch price: €1,500 for individuals (1 to 4 interest-free instalments), €7,500 for companies. ADC is not yet eligible for French public training funding (CPF, France Travail).

Over to you

Which OWASP Top 10:2025 category do you test for in your current project, and which one do you suspect nobody on your team has ever checked? If your team added "Software Supply Chain Failures" to its test plan, what did the first check look like?

Sources: Verizon: 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report · Help Net Security: Verizon DBIR 2026 findings (20 May 2026) · IBM: Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026 · Baker Donelson: Ten takeaways from IBM's 2026 report · US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Information Security Analysts (modified 27 August 2026) · OWASP: Top 10:2025

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on Playwright and API testing courses.

k6, JMeter or Locust? Performance testing and why speed is a business metric

AutomationDataCamp — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:00:00 +0000

An app that works for one user is not necessarily an app that survives Black Friday, a tax deadline or a product launch. Performance testing is how you find out before your customers do. Here is what a performance tester does, how k6, JMeter and Locust differ, and what US sources say about speed and the job market.

TL;DR

The job: measure how an application behaves under load and find what breaks before it reaches production.
Why speed matters: Google's 2016 analysis of mobile sites found 53% of visits abandoned when a page took over 3 seconds; a 2020 Google and Deloitte study links a 0.1 second gain to +8.4% retail conversion.
US job market: the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 10% growth for software developers, QA analysts and testers (2025 to 2035). It has no figure for performance testers alone.

Many testers learn functional automation first: click, fill a form, check a message. That is useful, but it does not answer another very concrete question: what happens when two thousand people do the same thing at the same time? That is the ground of performance testing, and it is a specialty of its own. For the wider picture of what employers ask for, see the QA Skills Barometer and the guide to test automation in CI/CD.

What a performance tester actually does

The job is not just "send a lot of requests". It revolves around a few plain questions:

How many users can the application handle before response times become unacceptable?
What happens beyond that point? Does it slow down gently or collapse? Does it recover on its own?
Where is the bottleneck: the database, an external service, a missing cache, the server configuration?
Does it get worse with each release? A performance test run on every delivery catches a regression before users do.

People usually separate load tests (expected traffic), stress tests (beyond the limits), soak tests (hours of steady load) and spike tests (a sudden surge). Each one answers a different fear on the team.

Why speed is a business topic in the US

Slowness costs money, and it has been measured. Two Google-published sources are worth knowing, with their limits:

In its 2017 benchmarks article, Think with Google reports that 53% of mobile visits are abandoned if a page takes longer than 3 seconds to load. The underlying data dates from 2016 and comes from sites that opted in to sharing their analytics, so it describes an association, not a controlled experiment.
In "Milliseconds Make Millions" (page last updated 24 June 2020), Google, 55 and Deloitte studied 37 brand sites in Europe and the US and more than 30 million sessions, measured in late 2019. For retail, an improvement of 0.1 second in mobile load times went with +8.4% conversion rate and +9.2% spend.

Neither figure promises the same result for your company. They explain why product teams care, and why a bank, a ticketing site or a retailer wants someone who can prove the system holds up before the peak.

What the US job data says, and what it does not

The BLS groups software developers, quality assurance analysts and testers in one occupation. Its Occupational Outlook Handbook (last modified 27 August 2026) projects 10% employment growth from 2025 to 2035, "much faster than the average", with about 106,100 openings a year on average, and a median pay of $134,040 in May 2025. These numbers cover the whole group, not performance testers specifically, and most openings come from people changing occupations or leaving the workforce.

I do not have a reliable US figure for performance testing alone, so I will not invent one. Our own snapshot of 405 French "QA" job ads (2 October 2026) is a hint about rarity: JMeter appears in 1.7% of them, k6 and Gatling in 1% each, Locust was not measured. Performance skills are rarely listed in generalist QA ads, which can make them a way to stand out, though that finding comes from France and not the US.

k6, JMeter, Locust: three tools, three approaches

They do not compete so much as complement each other.

JMeter: the long-standing tool, with a graphical interface, widely used in large organisations. Handy for building a scenario without code, heavier to version and to run automatically.
k6: scenarios are written in JavaScript, in a text file you version like the rest of your code. Easy to run from a CI pipeline.
Locust: scenarios are written in Python, which suits teams that already use that language for tests or data.

Learning all three has a simple payoff: you join a client that has used JMeter for ten years, or a team that prefers k6, and you are not stuck. What matters most is the method (which scenario, which load, which acceptable threshold, how to read the results), and it is the same from one tool to the next.

Before you load-test anything: know where you stand

Load testing a team that has no test strategy, no clear environments and no baseline mostly produces noise. If you are not sure how mature your testing is overall, a QA maturity assessment comes first: ADC delivers it as a 5-day QA audit at €1,000 excl. VAT. It tells you whether performance is the gap that matters, or one of several.

The Perf QA specialisation at ADC

Here is what the Performance Tester specialisation says: the title is "Performance Tester" (Perf QA), to load-test, measure resilience and optimise throughput, with k6, JMeter and Locust; 399 hours over 3 months, 100% online; next session in October; mentoring included, 6-month platform access and 24-month replays.

Exact dates, prerequisites and any certifications are confirmed with an ADC advisor before you enrol, and no ISTQB certification is promised for this specialisation. ADC is a French-language training organisation and its courses are taught in French. Launch price for individuals: €1,500 incl. VAT, payable in 1 to 4 interest-free instalments; for companies, €7,500 incl. VAT. ADC is not eligible for French public funding such as the CPF at the moment.

It suits someone who already knows the basics of testing and wants to add a rare skill. If you are starting from zero, the main QA automation and AI program is the more logical first step.

Over to you

Which kind of test has taught you the most in your own projects: load, stress, soak or spike? And which tool did you start with, JMeter, k6 or Locust, and would you pick the same one today?

Sources: Think with Google: Mobile page speed new industry benchmarks (2017; data from March 2016) · Google (web.dev), Deloitte and 55: "Milliseconds Make Millions" (page updated 24 June 2020) · US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Software Developers, QA Analysts and Testers (last modified 27 August 2026) · ADC: QA Skills Barometer, 405 "QA" job ads in France, 2 October 2026 · k6 · Apache JMeter · Locust

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above, as cited in the original article (checked on 19 October 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on software testing courses.

From QA tester to Lead QA: what changes, and what US data can't tell you

AutomationDataCamp — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:00:00 +0000

After a few years writing and automating tests, many testers wonder whether to keep going deeper on the tooling or to move into a role that sets test strategy, designs the test architecture and runs the team's approach to quality. This article explains what changes, and what US labor data can and cannot tell you before you step up.

TL;DR

The role change: a lead decides what to test, how to organise it and how to measure it; an architect designs the technical structure that keeps it sustainable.
US data: the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 6% employment growth for software QA analysts and testers from 2025 to 2035, against 10% for software developers.
The limit: the BLS does not track QA leads or test architects separately, so no official figure exists for those roles.

Tester, lead, architect: three different jobs

Job titles vary from one company to the next, and what follows is my reading of the field, not a standard. A tester designs and runs tests, often with an automation tool, on the scope they are given. A QA lead answers a different question: for this product, with this deadline and this budget, what should we test, at which level, and who does it? A test architect looks after structure: how test code is organised, where data comes from, how tests run in the CI pipeline, and how all of it stays maintainable two years from now.

In a small team one person wears both hats. In a large one, they are two jobs. Either way, the shift is from "I deliver tests" to "I make the team able to deliver good tests".

What actually changes in the work

Test strategy. Strategy starts with risk: identify what could hurt the product, decide what to test first, decide what not to automate, and split the effort between unit, API and end-to-end tests. A good strategy fits on a few pages and can be defended in front of a project manager. It says why, not just what.

Test architecture. An automation project that grows without a plan gets slow and brittle. The architect sets the rules: repository layout, data and environment management, parallel execution, readable reports, and conventions the whole team follows. The goal is simple: a new tester can add a test without breaking the others.

Metrics. Measuring is for deciding, not for decorating a dashboard. A coverage percentage alone does not tell you whether the right risks are covered. A lead picks few indicators, explains what they show and what they hide, and uses them to make trade-offs: where to put effort, when to stop, what to fix in the process.

Leading the team. Sharing out work, reviewing, coaching, pushing back on an unrealistic deadline, presenting a risk to the Product Owner: a growing share of the job happens in conversation. For a tester used to working alone on their scenarios, this is often the biggest change.

What US labor data says

The most solid public source is the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, which treats "software quality assurance analysts and testers" (SOC 15-1253) as its own occupation alongside software developers. Its page was last modified on August 27, 2026:

Jobs: about 187,600 software QA analysts and testers in 2025, against about 1,717,800 software developers. By simple division, that is roughly one QA analyst or tester for every nine developers.
Growth: projected employment growth from 2025 to 2035 is 6% for QA analysts and testers and 10% for software developers.
Pay: median annual pay in May 2025 was $104,300 for QA analysts and testers and $135,980 for software developers.

Two honest limits. First, the BLS does not publish figures for QA leads or test architects, so these numbers describe the occupation as a whole, not the step up. Second, a 6% projection is moderate growth, and it says nothing about your own chances of getting a given job.

My interpretation, which is an opinion and not a statistic: when there are relatively few tester seats per team, broadening your scope towards strategy, architecture and metrics is one way to become harder to replace by a script or an AI assistant. It is not the only way, and it does not suit everyone.

A one-week test before you decide

For a week, note how many of your questions at work are about how to write a test, and how many are about what to test and why. The second kind is the lead's territory. If most of your questions already sit there, the step is probably natural. If they do not, that is useful to know too.

If you are already asked "what is our test strategy?" and want an outside view of the answer, ADC offers a QA audit: a risk and coverage map of a team's testing, with a costed action plan.

What about certification?

ISTQB offers advanced levels. The CTAL-TM (Test Management, version 3.0) covers, among other topics, project test strategy, risk-based testing, test metrics, estimation, defect management and stakeholder relationships. It requires the Foundation level (CTFL) and enough practical experience, with the exact criteria set by ISTQB's national member boards. It is not mandatory, and it is not part of the specialisation below.

ADC's Lead QA & Architect specialisation

The track is for an experienced tester who wants to move towards team leadership, test strategy and test architecture. As shown on the Lead QA & Architect specialisation:

399 hours over 3 months, 100% online;
next session announced for January 2027 (confirm the exact date with an advisor);
one-to-one mentoring, learning platform for 6 months, session replays for 24 months;
topics: test strategy, team leadership, test architecture, metrics.

Launch price for individuals: €1,750 incl. VAT, payable in 1 to 4 interest-free instalments; for companies, €7,500 incl. VAT. Prerequisites are clarified with an advisor, since this track is not meant for beginners. ADC is a French-language online training provider, so check the teaching language before you enrol. No certification is promised for this specialisation, and no job, promotion or salary either.

Over to you

If you have made the jump from tester to lead, what was the first thing that surprised you: the strategy work, the metrics, or the conversations? And if you decided to stay hands-on instead, what made you choose that?

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers (Occupational Outlook Handbook, page last modified August 27, 2026) · ISTQB: Advanced Level Test Management CTAL-TM v3.0 (page modified August 22, 2026) · ADC: QA specialisation tracks (Lead QA & Architect)

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above, as cited in the original article (checked on 19 October 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on ISTQB certification prep.

Testing now lives in the pipeline: what CNCF, DORA and BLS data mean for QA

AutomationDataCamp — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:00:00 +0000

A few years ago, a tester received a build, tested it and gave a verdict. Today code goes through a pipeline that builds, tests and ships on every change. A tester who cannot read that pipeline only sees part of the work. Here is what recent US-based studies say about it, with their limits.

TL;DR

Testing moves into the pipeline: it runs on every commit, not once at the end of a project.
Containers are mainstream: 82% of container users run Kubernetes in production (CNCF, January 2026).
The main obstacle is human: the most-cited challenge is cultural change with development teams (47%), not technology.
No figure measures "the market for DevOps testers", and none is claimed here.

What changes: testing is no longer "the last step"

In a team that ships often, nobody waits for a tester to open a spreadsheet of test cases. Automated checks start on every code change, and the pipeline stops when a test fails. The tester gains a more visible role: deciding which tests run, when, in which environment, and how to read a failure.

Employers in France already ask for it. In our QA skills barometer of 2 October 2026, CI/CD appears in 35.1% of the 405 QA job ads we analysed. That is a French sample, not a US one, but it points the same way. For concrete examples with Jenkins, GitLab CI and GitHub Actions, see test automation in CI/CD.

What the US-facing data says, and its limits

Each of these figures measures something specific.

Kubernetes in production. In the CNCF Annual Cloud Native Survey 2025, published on January 20, 2026, 82% of container users run Kubernetes in production, up from 66% in 2023. In the same survey, 98% of organisations say they have adopted cloud native techniques and 59% say much or nearly all of their development and deployment is cloud native.
A cultural obstacle first. The same survey names "cultural changes with the development team" as the top challenge (47%). CNCF says it is the first time the main challenge is organisational rather than technical. For a tester, being able to work with developers weighs as much as knowing the tools.
AI speeds up code, not trust. The 2025 DORA report from Google Cloud (September 23, 2025, nearly 5,000 technology professionals surveyed) says AI adoption among software professionals reached 90%, and is now linked to higher software delivery throughput. It also notes that the ongoing challenge is making sure software works as intended before it reaches users. That is exactly where testing sits.
Jobs. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics projects employment of software developers, QA analysts and testers to grow 10% from 2025 to 2035. For the QA analysts and testers line alone, it counts 187,600 jobs in 2025 and projects 198,200 in 2035, a 6% increase. The BLS groups these roles with developers for pay and does not break out DevOps testing, so I quote no salary here.

CI/CD, Docker, Kubernetes: seen from the test side

Four simple ideas, without needless jargon.

CI/CD: tests on every commit. A pipeline runs tests automatically when a change arrives. The tester chooses what runs on every commit (fast), on every merge (broader) and overnight (long). A flaky test that fails the pipeline for no reason costs the whole team its trust, so the job is as much about making tests reliable as automating them. If that sounds familiar, our earlier piece on flaky Playwright tests goes through the usual causes.

Docker: the same environment everywhere. A container packages the application and its dependencies. For a tester it ends "it works on my machine": you start the same environment locally and in the pipeline, with controlled test data.

Kubernetes: knowing where tests run. When the application runs on Kubernetes, test environments are created and destroyed there. You do not need to administer a cluster. You need to understand enough to run your tests in the right place and to read a log when something does not start.

Observability: seeing what happens after release. Logs, metrics and traces help explain a failure and spot a regression the tests missed.

A practical first step

If your tests only run on your laptop, move one smoke suite into a pipeline and make it block the merge when it fails. That single change forces every question that matters: where does the environment come from, where does the test data come from, and what happens when a test is flaky. If you want a second pair of eyes on how your tests fit into delivery, ADC also does a Cypress to Playwright migration with both suites running in CI during the transition.

The DevOps QA specialisation, briefly

ADC's DevOps QA specialisation covers CI/CD, Docker, Kubernetes and observability. The DevOps QA specialisation track lists 399 hours over 3 months, 100% online, with one-on-one mentoring, 6 months on the learning platform and 24 months of replays. The next session is announced for December; exact dates are confirmed with an advisor.

Two honest points. The programme pages state that ADC courses are taught in French, so ask an advisor about the language before you decide. And no certification is promised for this specialisation. Launch price: €1,500 for individuals (1 to 4 interest-free instalments), €7,500 for companies. Public funding schemes are not yet available at ADC. No programme guarantees a job or a salary.

Over to you

Where does your test suite run today: on every commit, on merge, nightly, or only when someone remembers? And in your team, is the harder part the tooling or, as CNCF's 47% suggests, the conversation with developers?

Sources: CNCF: Annual Cloud Native Survey 2025 (January 20, 2026) · Google: 2025 DORA report (September 23, 2025) · US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers (projections 2025-35, page updated August 27, 2026) · ADC: QA Skills Barometer France (October 2, 2026)

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above, as cited in the original article (checked on 19 October 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on CI/CD and DevOps QA training.

Is software testing still a good career in 2026? What US data says about QA and AI

AutomationDataCamp — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 13:00:00 +0000

"Will AI take my testing job?" is the question I hear most from people thinking about a career in QA. Instead of guessing, I went to the most reliable public source for US jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and read what it actually says about software QA analysts and testers, and about AI.

TL;DR

The outlook is positive: the BLS projects 6% growth for software QA analysts and testers from 2025 to 2035.
The pay data is solid: the median annual wage for this occupation was $104,300 in May 2025.
AI is a demand driver, not only a threat: the BLS links demand to software built for AI, IoT, robotics and other automation.
The work moves: drafting a first test gets cheaper with AI assistants; deciding what to test, reviewing the output and judging risk do not.

What the US data says about testers

The Occupational Outlook Handbook, last modified on 27 August 2026, gives these figures for software quality assurance analysts and testers:

About 187,600 jobs in 2025.
Projected employment growth of 6% from 2025 to 2035.
A median annual wage of $104,300 in May 2025.

For the wider group that includes software developers, QA analysts and testers, the BLS projects 10% growth over the same period and about 106,100 openings per year, mostly from workers who leave the occupation and need to be replaced. Read that carefully: 6% is the figure for testers alone, and the openings number covers the whole group, not testers only.

Also keep in mind that these are US national figures. Pay depends on the city, the sector, the seniority and the employer, and a median is not a starting salary. These numbers describe the market. They do not predict what anyone would earn.

What the BLS says about AI

The same page does not describe AI as shrinking this occupation. It says demand should stay strong because of the growth of software for AI, the Internet of Things, robotics and other automation, and that more investment in security software could raise demand for QA analysts and testers.

A fair reading: more software means more things to verify. The work moves, though. Writing a first draft of a test is getting cheaper with AI assistants. Deciding what to test, reviewing what the assistant produced and judging a risk are not getting cheaper.

I looked at the job-ad side too. In our QA Skills Barometer, a snapshot of 405 QA job ads in France taken on 2 October 2026, Playwright appears in 24.2% of ads and AI in 20.7%, with Jira and agile practices each in a larger share. That is a French sample, not a US one, but the direction is useful: automation and AI are on the list, and the basics of test management are still asked for more often. For a wider view, see AI testing trends in 2026.

The skills that travel

Whether a team is in Austin, Montreal or Lyon, the core of the job looks the same:

Test design: equivalence classes, boundary values, risk analysis. This is what makes automated tests worth having.
Automation: Playwright with TypeScript is a common modern stack for web and API tests. If you are on the hiring side and want that kind of suite built in your own repository instead, ADC also offers Playwright test automation services.
CI: running tests on every change, for example with GitHub Actions, and reading the failures.
Working with AI: generate, review, run and verify, and never accept a test you have not read.
Certification as a common language: ISTQB certificates are international.

A habit that costs nothing: the next time an AI assistant writes a test for you, read it line by line and ask what bug it would actually catch. If you cannot answer, the test is decoration.

One course, with honest limits

Our QA Automation & AI Tester course is built around exactly that list, starting from zero: testing fundamentals, then Playwright and TypeScript for web and API tests, tests in GitHub Actions, and generative AI applied to testing.

399 hours over 12 weeks, with 160 hours of live classes with a mentor and about 239 hours of self-paced work.
100% online, evening classes Monday to Friday, 19:30 to 21:30 Paris time.
ISTQB CTFL v4.0 and CT-GenAI v1.1 exams included, with a second attempt offered for each. The course is "certifying" in this precise sense: an ADC certificate awarded after a defence in front of a jury, plus the ISTQB exams.

The limits matter for a US reader. Classes are in French, so you need fluent French and the ability to read technical English. If you are not a French speaker, this course is not the right fit today. The evening slot is Paris time, early afternoon on the US East Coast. The next session runs from 15 October 2026 to 15 January 2027 with 12 places, and enrolment stays open until 22 October.

Price: €1,500 launch price for individuals (1 to 4 interest-free instalments), €7,500 for companies, both including VAT. French public funding such as the CPF, France Travail or an OPCO is not available yet. There is no promise of a job, a salary or that a recruiter will recognise the certificate.

Over to you

If you moved into QA in the last couple of years, which skill turned out to matter more than you expected: test design, automation or working with an AI assistant? And if you hire testers, what do you now ask candidates about AI that you did not ask two years ago?

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Software Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers (last modified 27 August 2026) · ADC: QA Skills Barometer (snapshot of 2 October 2026, France) · ISTQB

Originally published on AutomationDataCamp. Written with AI assistance. Every figure comes from the sources listed above, as cited in the original article (checked on 19 October 2026).

AutomationDataCamp is an online software testing academy (Playwright, API testing, CI, AI-assisted testing, ISTQB prep). More on QA Automation & AI Tester course.