Everything there is to know about exploratory testing

Conventional software testing can be rigid since it follows a predefined set of methodologies meant to get the product ready for the production phase. After each test, the development team focuses on checking if the bugs can be addressed; while effective, this recurring cycle of development and testing is also time- and resource-intensive. Thankfully, the use of exploratory testing processes can help in terms of both test execution and analysis.

start testing free

What is exploratory testing?

The exploratory testing process focuses on performing a series of random tests that check the stability and performance of the application's features. This type of testing is suitable for modern application development as it supports simultaneous testing, development, and analysis.

While automated tests only provide information on whether the execution of particular test cases were successful or not, exploratory testing can help with assessing the exact behavior of the application's features. With planning, it can be instrumental in creating extensive test documentation for bug identification and resolution.

Comparison of scripted testing with exploratory testing

Scripted testing, as the name suggests, follows a predefined script and is very similar to the traditional testing process. But exploratory testing is different from scripted testing in many ways:

Scripted testing

Exploratory testing

Scripted testing follows a structured process from the start.

Exploratory testing is not structured and can be random.

Testing can be conducted only after the development of features is complete.

Even if a feature works, it can be subjected to exploratory testing for gathering insights.

Testing requires extensive planning and documentation.

A lack of documentation and planning is not a limiting factor.

Test execution requires the creation of test scripts.

The test process requires critical thinking and product knowledge.

Automated test scripts are possible.

Exploratory testing is not compatible with automated tests.

Comprehensive testing is conducted against predetermined requirements, making it slower.

Testing is limited to specific functionalities, providing swifter results.

The repetitive execution of existing test scripts requires assessments after each test.

Testing can be done even without test cases, as they're based on scenarios.

Scripted tests are conducted as per requirements, with each test and its results documented for further use.

It can be difficult to gather results or replicate finished exploratory tests, as they might not be documented.

Scripted testing takes a lot of time, as it follows conventional testing methods.

Exploratory testing is preferred when time is limited.

Both scripted testing and exploratory testing have their advantages and disadvantages, but ideally it's better to have a combination of both testing types.

Types of exploratory testing

Freestyle exploratory testing

This type of exploratory testing doesn't involve any planning, and testing is carried out with the intent to address any anomaly that might surface when the different application features are accessed randomly.

Scenario-based exploratory testing

Scenario-based exploratory testing ensures that the application is assessed under different conditions emulating real-world scenarios. Ideally, each scenario is discussed with the different teams and stakeholders for accurate results.

Strategy-based exploratory testing

This kind of testing requires a predefined strategy that runs a series of tests in a particular order for maximum bug coverage. The strategy is unique for each test project based on the application's requirements.

Different stages of exploratory testing

Each exploratory testing session comprises different stages:

Bug classification

After discovery and initial assessment, teams should classify bugs based on their severity and priority. Identifying the root causes to prepare a bug report can help with effectively resolving any bugs.

Test charter

This is a concise document that clearly outlines the parameters and scope of the data. It comprises a clear description of the tests to be conducted and their requirements. Freestyle exploratory testing doesn't require a test charter, but the other two types of exploratory testing rely on it.

Time box

The required tests are conducted without any interruptions for the agreed duration, which can be extended if needed. The bugs uncovered during this phase are assessed thoroughly, and a detailed report with all the essential requirements is prepared for further investigation.

Results

The results for tests carried out in controlled environments are a clear indication of the application's real-world behavior. After analyzing the results, they're shared with the different teams to work on tweaks that address any issues.

Debriefing

After uncovering any bugs, the entire testing process and every single step involved in fixing the error are documented for future testing and reference.

Reasons why exploratory testing is preferred

Test coverage

By incorporating boundary value analysis for random test scenarios, different types of exploratory testing provide testing teams with the flexibility to swiftly identify unusual bugs for improved test coverage.

Less preparation

The testing team doesn't require extensive documentation, test scripts, and preparation to use exploratory testing when compared to formal testing methods.

Less time

Unlike regression testing, which is synonymous with comprehensive and repetitive tests, exploratory testing involves a set number of test cases.

Early identification

Exploratory testing can be performed during the initial stages of testing on the core features of the application that are crucial to its performance. Early identification of any errors can help teams decide how much time and effort should be allotted to addressing them.

Rapid feedback

Generally, testers use exploratory testing over other testing methods to provide rapid feedback that can be conveyed to the relevant teams for expedited development and faster delivery.

Collaborative efforts

Running exploratory tests isn't limited to experienced testers; anyone, be it a developer, tester, manager, or analyst, can contribute, as the end goal is to maximize test coverage.

An example of exploratory testing

Let's consider an example of performing exploratory testing on an ecommerce application that specializes in selling different kinds of watches. In this example, the exploratory tests assess if the product page displays all of the details related to the watch.

In exploratory testing, the tester randomly chooses a watch page to check if the product image, description, and other details are displayed correctly. To assess the purchase workflow, the next step would be to check if the Add to cart or Buy now buttons work properly by trying to add the product to the cart. There can also be a specific test to check if adding one or more quantities of the product present in the cart gets reflected.

Subsequent tests focus on payment processing and successful addition of user information to trigger the shipping workflow involving the logistics partner. These tests are capable of capturing the application's exact behavior when the functionalities are accessed. The results from these tests are enough for the development team to work on fixes and improvements.

As you can see in the above example, certain exploratory testing types are similar to ad-hoc testing. But a better understanding of the differences between them can help with choosing the right testing type for your project.

Differences between exploratory testing and ad-hoc testing

Ad-hoc testing

Exploratory testing

Generally, ad-hoc testing doesn't rely on documentation.

Exploratory testing requires minimal documentation.

Test planning isn't required, as tests are carried out randomly.

Effective exploratory testing can be achieved even with minimal planning.

Ad-hoc testing doesn't add much value to the testing project.

Exploratory testing can provide initial assessment and complement other tests.

Ad-hoc tests don't have predefined goals.

Exploratory tests can be goal-oriented.

This type of testing is preferred for smaller projects.

This type of testing can be suitable even for larger projects.

Ad-hoc is only suitable for the early stages of testing.

If planned, it can be used for the last stages of testing.

The tester is expected to have technical knowledge and an understanding of the product.

Certain tests don't require the tester to possess any technical or product knowledge.

Disadvantages of exploratory testing

Inconclusive

The nature of exploratory testing is such that there's no scope for extensive testing; while the results provide more information regarding anomalies, it isn't enough to make conclusive decisions for further testing.

Limited test coverage

Exploratory testing can't replace other tests as it isn't comprehensive enough to fully assess an application; it's not suitable for testing mission critical applications.

Requires expertise

Since the tests are carried out at random for different functionalities, the tester is expected to have knowledge of the application's features and different technologies related to the domain.

Non-replicable

Depending on the type of exploratory testing, the tests that are carried out can't be easily replicated, and there can be limitations when assessing the results.

Inefficient

Since anyone related to the project can perform exploratory testing, the bugs uncovered might not even qualify for further investigation by the development team. Similarly, the tests performed might not uncover scenarios that lead to critical failures that greatly affect the user experience.

Manual testing

Automated exploratory testing is often limited to specific scenarios; mostly manual testing is used, but it can't efficiently replicate anomalies if the tests aren't structured and documented properly.

Incompatible

While exploratory testing sessions are useful for Agile projects that rely on repetitive shorter sprints, it might not be suitable for other projects.

The must-have exploratory testing tool

Exploratory testing activities are carried out within a shorter timeframe involving minimal preparation, often with a mix of both automation testing and manual testing. But these testing efforts can achieve optimal results only if they're complemented with extensive planning and the best exploratory testing tools. Thankfully, there are multiple testing tools available on the market with unique sets of features that complement exploratory testing sessions.

Zoho QEngine is one example that supports manual testing for swiftly assessing different scenarios related to an application's functionalities. Its no-code recorder and low-code builder support easy test creation for automation testing. And its smart cross-platform test management feature helps with easy retrieval of test cases for both execution and automation. The ability to view playback with screenshot logs can provide even deeper insights for individual test runs.

Conclusion

After assessing the project's requirements and test scenarios, choosing the right type of exploratory testing can increase your efficiency. But it's important to remember that exploratory testing isn't a replacement for other types of testing—it's meant to complement traditional testing techniques. Optimized testing tools and proper planning is the key to achieving effective exploratory testing.