Comparing Manual vs Automated Penetration Testing Services


Manual testing is a type of software testing that test the functionality of apps. It ensures that the system is secure and meets the specified requirements. It is usually done by a human tester, rather than using automated scripts. Automated penetration testing service is a security testing that uses tools. Also, the goal of automated penetration testing is to identify problems. Let’s discuss both terms in detail to know which one would be better.

penetration testing services

What is a Manual testing service?

Manual testing is a process in which a tester executes test cases without tools. Moreover, this type of testing is helpful to ensure that it is working as intended. During manual testing, a tester will follow a set of test cases or test scenarios. It outlines the steps to test the application. These test cases are usually written by testers or by professionals. So, the tester will then follow the steps in the test cases and record any issues.  Manual testing is an external penetration test that can be time-consuming. But, it is often necessary to ensure that an application can meet needs. Also, is a more efficient way to test an application but may not catch all issues.

Advantages of Manual Testing:

Manual testing is a type of testing that involves a tester executing test cases. Some advantages include the following:

Allows Wide Testing:

With manual testing, it is possible to test every likely scenario. Also, the testers have complete control over the test environment. They can manipulate it in any way needed.

Easier to Find Defects:

Web application penetration testing makes it easier to identify document defects.  The tester clearly understands the steps taken to reproduce the issue. So, it would lead you toward a better understanding.


Manual testing can fit the specific needs of a project. Moreover, the expert can choose which test cases to execute and in what order.

Uncover Hidden Issues:

Automated testing may not be able to detect certain defects. So, manual testing allows for more creativity. Also, it can uncover defects that automated testing may miss.

Cost-Effective Option:

Manual testing is less expensive than automated testing. It does not need tools or software. So, it can help ensure that a product is of high quality and meets the needs of the users.

penetration testing as service


There are several potential disadvantages to using external penetration testing services:


Manual testing can be time-consuming, especially if the test cases are complex. This can lead to longer turnaround times for testing and slower release cycles.

Open to Human Error:

Manual testing relies on human testers to execute test cases and identify defects. Thus, it means that there is a higher risk of human error, such as missed steps. Thus, always consider the best ways to avoid such errors.

Limited Scalability:

It can be difficult to scale manual testing to the number of test cases or the complexity of the product. But, it can make it challenging to test with penetration testing as a service.

Limited Coverage:

Manual testing has limits in the number of test cases that can be run with ease. Thus, it means that it may not be possible to test all aspects of a product.

penetration testing service

Automated Penetration Testing Services

Automated penetration testing service is testing that automates the process. The goal of automated penetration on testing is to identify system issues. These tools can test a wide range of applications including web servers. But, it is important to note that automated testing is not a substitute for manual testing. It may not be able to identify all complex problems.

Advantages of Automated Penetration Testing:

Automated penetration testing services can provide several benefits including:

Increased Efficiency:

Automated tools can scan a large number of systems. Moreover, it helps in providing faster results than manual testing.

Reduced Costs:

Internal penetration testing can be less expensive than external testing. You can adapt it for large organizations with many systems to test.

Improved Accuracy:

Automated tools can test for a wider range than manual testing. So, it can reduce the risk of system issues with the best decision.

Increased Coverage:

Automated tools can cover a wider range of systems and applications. Thus, they may be difficult or time-consuming to test.

Increased Coverage


Let’s have a look at some of the disadvantages of this approach:

Limited Scope:

Automated penetration testing as a service is generally not as manual testing. It is also open to errors that you cannot identify.

False Positives:

Automated tools may produce false positives. It means they may identify vulnerabilities that do not actually exist. Thus, it can lead to a lack of trust in the results.

Limited Human Interaction:

Automated testing lacks the human element and may not be able to identify issues. So, it requires a deeper understanding of the system.

Limited Reporting:

Automated testing may not provide as much detail in the reporting as manual testing.

Comparing Manual vs Automated Penetration Testing Services:

Both approaches have their own benefits and drawbacks. The appropriate choice will depend on the specific needs of the organization. So, here are some key differences between manual and automated penetration testing:


Manual penetration testing involves a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the system. Moreover, it can involve manual probing and exploitation of vulnerabilities. But, automated testing relies on automated tools and scripts.

Time and Resources:

Manual testing can be more time-consuming and resource-intensive. It requires skilled human testers to probe and exploit vulnerabilities. Also, it relies on automated tools to scan for vulnerabilities.


Manual testing is more accurate, as it involves skilled human testers. The testers can analyze the results of the testing to give conclusions. Moreover, automated penetration testing as service may rely on pre-programmed rules.


Manual testing can be more customized to meet specific needs. Also, testers can focus on specific areas of the system or network or test for specific issues. But, automated testing is more limited in its customization options. It relies on predefined tools and scripts.


Final Words:

In general, a manual penetration testing service is ideal for an in-depth analysis. While automated testing is better for more superficial, and quick scans. Both manual and automated testing can be useful in different situations. It is often advisable to use a combination of both to get a more comprehensive view of security. Thus, you should choose the one according to your needs.

Learn More

5 Benefits of Progressive Web Apps That Make Worth IT

4 Pillars for a great cloud security strategy

Ready to start your project?

We will help and provide full support

Contact Us