Low-Code vs. Code-Based Automation: Finding the Right Balance

As businesses strive to accelerate software delivery, the debate between low-code vs. code-based automation has taken center stage. While traditional code based frameworks have long been the go-to for test engineers seeking control and customization, low-code solutions are rapidly gaining ground especially among teams looking to scale quickly and collaborate more broadly.

But is it really a matter of choosing one over the other?

In this blog post, we’ll explore the strengths and limitations of both approaches, the growing relevance of hybrid automation, and how real-world teams like Zucchetti are striking the right balance using tools like AskUI.

👉 See how Zucchetti transformed their QA process

1. The Case for Code-Based Testing

Code-based automation typically using tools like Selenium, Cypress, or Playwright has long been favored by QA teams for its:

• Granular control over test logic and behavior
• Flexibility to handle edge cases and complex workflows
• Integration with CI/CD pipelines and dev ecosystems

But there’s a downside. Code-based testing can quickly lead to:

• Steep learning curves for non-technical team members
• Time-consuming maintenance when the UI changes frequently
• Test fragility due to hardcoded selectors and manual waits

2. The Rise of Low-Code Automation

Low-code tools offer a more visual, drag-and-drop approach to test creation. Their benefits include:

• Faster test creation and onboarding, especially for non-engineers
• Higher collaboration between QA, product, and business teams
• Prebuilt logic and smart UI recognition to reduce manual coding

However, many low-code platforms lack the depth required for handling edge cases, debugging complex workflows, or scaling tests across environments.

3. Why Hybrid Automation is the Future

The truth is: most modern QA teams need a combination of both.

Hybrid automation allows teams to:

• Use low-code tools for repetitive, UI-based validations
• Use code-based scripts for backend logic, API testing, or custom workflows
• Seamlessly switch between modes depending on the complexity of the task

This balance increases agility, enhances test coverage, and empowers both technical and non-technical team members to contribute to quality assurance.

4. Choosing What’s Right for Your Team

To determine the best automation strategy, ask:

• Are your testers comfortable with code?
• Do you have frequent UI changes that require rapid test updates?
• Is collaboration across teams a priority?
• Do you need to scale test creation without overloading your dev team?

In most cases, a hybrid solution offers the flexibility to adapt as your team grows.

Finding the Balance That Works

You don’t have to choose between full control and speed. Sometimes the smartest move is to use both. Think of low-code and code-based automation not as competing forces but as complementary strengths.

That’s what Zucchetti did. By blending the power of traditional testing with the flexibility of modern low-code automation, they improved coverage, sped up releases, and reduced maintenance headaches.

🔗 Read how they did it with AskUI

‍