Is Testing in LATAM a Dinosaur Refusing to Evolve?

In many organizations across LATAM, testing remains stuck in the Stone Age. A recent LinkedIn post made it clear: while some see manual testing as a ‘headache’ and illustrate it with stone-age cars, others cling to it as if it were the only truth. The result? A rather unhelpful debate. With over 20 years working in quality and testing companies, I say: time to market and value generation are the true champions, and our mission is to create solutions.

Legacy systems like COBOL or RPG are still critical worldwide and in LATAM, and QA teams face deadlines that don’t forgive. Manual testing has its place—usability and unique flows, for example—but relying on it as the only option is a luxury we can’t afford. I experienced it firsthand: in a previous venture, every deployment was chaos. Rework, over costs, friction, and a reputation in freefall, all because of software errors and a manual testing process that made us even slower. That pain drove me to pursue a postgraduate degree in quality, learn about quality models, and ultimately create a company to change the rules of the game.

Here’s a spark to ignite the fire: in LATAM, a significant number of projects are delayed due to testing that refuses to evolve. It’s not the fault of manual QA testers, but of a system that fears change. Continuing like this is like driving a stone-age car on a modern highway: you arrive late, and everyone passes you by. Automation isn’t the enemy; the enemy is the fear of moving forward.

That’s why automated testing and ‘Low-Code’ tools were born—they don’t eliminate manual testing but make it unstoppable. With automation, you improve delivery speed and generated value; eliminating the repetitive—across web, mobile, APIs, and legacy—is the rule, and with ‘Low-Code’; you don’t need a PhD in programming. That’s what ‘Low-Code’ testing automation tools was made for: to easily and fast design and execute tests from a graphical interface and run them in CI/CD pipelines. ‘Low-Code’ testing automation tools is the hybrid that balances the game: the human judgment of manual QA with the speed of automation. In my experience, this cuts time in half and delivers the quality clients demand.

I’m not here to bury manual QA testers. A good manual tester sees what no machine can: a button that doesn’t flow, an experience that fails, etc. But the future doesn’t wait, and LATAM can’t keep lagging behind. With ‘Low-Code’ testing automation tools, we’ve already won the war against time. It’s not a promise, it’s a fact: hybrid testing is the way forward, and the ‘Low-Code’ testing automation tools are a smart alternative.

So, is testing in LATAM a dinosaur refusing to evolve? That’s up to you. Stay in the prehistoric era or join the future with ‘Low-Code’ testing automation tools —a model that takes the best of both worlds: manual skills and automation efficiency. What do you choose? Let me know in the comments.