Quality isn't a one-size-fits-all concept in software. Different teams talk about quality control (QC), quality assurance (QA), or quality engineering (QE) – sometimes interchangeably, often confusingly. Imagine a startup's app launch goes awry due to a critical bug. One engineer says, "Our testing (QC) failed." Another asks, "Did we even have the right process (QA) to catch this?" A seasoned DevOps lead chimes in: "We need to build quality into development from the start (QE)." All three viewpoints aim for the same goal – better software – but approach it in different ways.
This article breaks down QC, QA, and QE in plain terms, illustrates them with real-world examples, and helps you decide what your software team truly needs.
Quality control (QC): catching defects at the end
Quality control is about inspecting and testing the product itself for defects. In traditional terms, QC happens after development: it's the practice of finding bugs or deviations in the finished software before it ships. ISO 9000 (the global quality management standard) defines QC as "part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality requirements". In other words, QC is a reactive process – it kicks in once code is written, aiming to identify any problems by testing the software against the requirements.
Think of QC as the safety net or the last line of defense. For example, a QC activity might be running a suite of tests on a new app release to ensure all features work as expected, or a human tester performing final checks on critical user flows. In a manufacturing analogy, QC is akin to a factory inspection line where finished products are examined for flaws. If an e-commerce website's checkout feature has a bug, QC is what catches it before customers do.
Key characteristics of QC include being product-oriented and defect-focused. It's about validation: Does the software meet the specifications? Inspection and test execution are major QC components. For instance, testers (or automated test scripts) verify that a bug fix actually resolves the issue and doesn't break anything else. Because QC is typically done late in the development cycle, it's inherently reactive – issues are found and fixed after they've been introduced. This makes QC essential, but if relied on alone, it can be costly and slow (bugs discovered late may delay releases or require rushed fixes).
Quality assurance (QA): building the proper process
Quality assurance shifts the focus from the product to the process. It's about formulating the quality gates that software would need to pass to be released and designing and following a process that prevents defects from entering into the final product. For example, ISO 9000 defines quality assurance as "part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled." In practice, QA encompasses all the proactive measures – standards, reviews, methodologies – that ensure you're building the product right. Rather than catching bugs at the end, QA asks: How do we avoid injecting bugs to begin with?
QA is process oriented and proactive. It starts at project kickoff, not after code is written. The QA lead works with product and engineering to plan the test strategy across the entire SDLC, detailing what will be tested, when each layer of testing will run, and how results will be recorded. The team agrees on how formal test documentation must be, pinpoints quality risks early, and sets out preventive actions.
Clear requirements with objective acceptance criteria give everyone a shared definition of done. QA also defines the test environments and data needed, so every build is exercised under realistic conditions. Throughout delivery, metrics such as defect escape rate and time to repair are tracked to drive continuous improvement. By treating quality as a planned, measurable workflow built into the process, teams avoid bolting on fixes at the end and keep defects from reaching users in the first place.
To illustrate, imagine a restaurant kitchen: QA is like the head chef, ensuring that recipes and cooking processes are well-defined and followed diligently, so that each dish is consistently of excellent quality. In software, QA could mean instituting a rule that every new feature must include unit tests, undergo peer code review, be tested by QA engineers, pass integration checks, and confirm it doesn’t break existing functionality before being merged. These steps don't directly test the software (that's the role of QC), but they ensure quality by making defects less likely to occur.
Importantly, QA and QC work hand-in-hand. QA sets up a framework for quality, and QC verifies the results. A helpful way to distinguish between them is that QA is proactive, while QC is reactive; QA focuses on the process, while QC focuses on the final product (the outcome of production). QA might prevent a typo in requirements from ever reaching code, whereas QC might catch a typo in the UI before release. In many organizations, QC is actually considered a subset of QA – one of the activities within a broader quality assurance program. Both are needed: without QC, you can't be sure the final software is good; without QA, you're doomed to keep catching the same bugs over and over in QC.
Quality engineering (QE): quality built into development
Quality engineering takes quality to the next level by embedding it throughout the entire development lifecycle. Quality engineering can be described as a proactive strategy for building quality into products from inception to production. QE can be thought of as a technical branch of QA that builds product‑specific automation frameworks and supporting toolsets. Instead of handing quality off to a separate phase or team, QE embeds automated tests, data‑generation scripts, and deployment hooks directly into the daily workflow.
To make that happen, QE relies on reusable automated test frameworks and tight CI/CD integrations. Unit, API, and UI checks run on every commit, blocking unstable builds and enabling continuous delivery without sacrificing quality. In essence, QE is a holistic, integrated approach that folds quality into every step of the SDLC.
Teams practicing QE focus on shift left testing—exercising code early and often—along with shift right practices such as monitoring and feedback from production. The goal is to find and fix issues as soon as possible, or prevent them altogether, accelerating delivery while keeping the product stable.
QC vs. QA vs. QE : making the right choice
With clear definitions in hand, it's time to answer the big question: What does your software really need – QC, QA, or QE? The unsatisfying but honest answer is almost certainly a mix, depending on your context and maturity. These concepts build upon one another more than they replace each other. Here's how to think about it:
Every team needs basic QC. At a minimum, you must have a mechanism to test your software (whether manual testing, automated tests, or ideally both) before it reaches users. If you have zero QC – no testing or review – defects will escape. For example, in a very early-stage startup, you might not have a formal QA department, but you still perform QC (e.g., running the app and fixing obvious bugs before release). As your team grows, you might dedicate specialists to testing or use QA outsourcing for extra QC. No matter what, ensure you have a safety net to catch critical issues.
Invest in QA processes as you grow. When you find your team frequently firefighting bugs or experiencing inconsistent quality, it's a sign to bolster your quality assurance. This could mean introducing QA plans and test strategies, code reviews, linters, CI builds that run tests, or adopting a formal testing framework. QA is about preventing bugs from entering the finished product and improving consistency. For example, a mid-sized product company might establish a QA role to design test plans, improve developer–tester workflows, and maintain quality standards. If your industry is regulated (finance, healthcare, aerospace), robust QA is non-negotiable – you need formal processes (requirements traceability, documentation, audits) to ensure compliance and reliability. QA will help you sleep better at night, knowing there's a structured process in place to guard quality, not just ad-hoc efforts.
Embrace QE for speed and scale. If your organization is aiming for continuous delivery, rapid iterations, or simply the next level of efficiency and quality, quality engineering is the key. For example, QE has been shown to prevent defects early in the lifecycle, resulting in higher-quality products and reduced development costs. QE is most beneficial for more mature teams or those adopting a DevOps culture. Ask yourself: Are separate QA handoffs causing delays or friction? Are your testers overwhelmed with repetitive checks? If so, start moving toward QE: encourage developers to write and run unit tests as they code, integrate testing into your CI/CD pipeline, and upskill your QA staff to become automation engineers or quality coaches who build and maintain the test automation framework and automated test scripts. This doesn't happen overnight – it's a journey of changing culture and implementing new tools. Start small: for instance, have developers fix bugs found in production along with adding an automated test to catch that class of bug in the future (a QE practice). Or embed a QA engineer into the development team to work on test automation in tandem with coding. Over time, you can achieve the agility of a Google or Microsoft, where quality is integrated deeply and doesn't solely rely on a final QC checkpoint. However, be mindful of your team's maturity – developers may need training and time to take on these responsibilities effectively. Management must also foster an environment where quality isn't sacrificed for speed; rather, speed is achieved because of quality practices.
Context matters. A small startup might lean heavily on QE-style developer ownership simply because it lacks a QA team – that can work if the team is disciplined about testing. A large enterprise with legacy systems may still require a dedicated QA/QC phase for some time due to risk but can gradually automate and push quality earlier. Consider the cost of failure in your domain. If you're deploying software to pacemakers or aerospace controls, you will need exhaustive QA and QC on top of any QE practices. If you're deploying a mobile game update, you can afford more iterative "test in production" (with QE/DevOps practices). In short, align your quality strategy with the criticality of your software's reliability and the speed at which you need to move.
Conclusion: finding your balance
In summary, QC, QA, and QE are three perspectives on the same goal – high-quality software – each suited to different needs and stages:
QC is about verification: testing the end product to identify and correct defects. It's absolutely necessary, but it comes at the end, so don't rely on it alone.
QA is about prevention: establishing a process that yields quality outcomes. It's the foundation for consistently good software, and it makes QC's job more efficient.
QE is about integration: weaving quality into every step of the development process. It's the modern way to achieve both speed and quality, but it requires cultural commitment and intelligent automation.
Rather than picking one, successful teams use all three in harmony. Start by ensuring you have solid QC in place (you know what to test, and you do test it). Build out QA practices to reduce the injection of bugs (get your process under control). And when you're ready to accelerate, adopt QE principles so that quality enablement becomes part of your engineering DNA. As the saying goes, "build quality in, don't bolt it on." If you understand the differences and strengths of QC, QA, and QE, you can apply the right mix for your context. The result will be software that not only meets standards on paper but also delights users in practice, shipped on time with confidence in its quality.
Top comments (0)