Performance Metrics vs Manual Testing

Developers should learn and use performance metrics to ensure their applications meet user expectations for speed and reliability, particularly in production environments where poor performance can lead to lost revenue or user churn meets developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical. Here's our take.

Performance Metrics

Nice Pick

Developers should learn and use performance metrics to ensure their applications meet user expectations for speed and reliability, particularly in production environments where poor performance can lead to lost revenue or user churn

Pros

• This is critical for web applications, APIs, and microservices where metrics like load time and uptime directly impact user experience and business outcomes
• Related to: application-performance-monitoring, load-testing

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Manual Testing

Developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical

Pros

• It's particularly valuable for usability testing, ad-hoc bug hunting, and validating new features before investing in automation scripts, helping ensure software meets real-world expectations and reducing post-release issues
• Related to: test-planning, bug-reporting

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Performance Metrics is a concept while Manual Testing is a methodology. We picked Performance Metrics based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Performance Metrics wins

Based on overall popularity. Performance Metrics is more widely used, but Manual Testing excels in its own space.