Which QA Method Actually Works? (Hint: Not All of Them)

Sprint starts.
Devs push features.
And suddenly someone drops “risk-based testing” like it’s going to magically cover the entire release.

Most QA teams are juggling black-box, white-box, exploratory, boundary-value, and a half-dozen more terms that look good in planning but collapse under real deadlines.

You don’t need all of them.
You don’t need a testing dictionary.
You need a method that fits how your product actually works—and how your team actually builds.

Because testing for testing’s sake doesn’t ship stable releases.
It just wastes cycles on artifacts no one reads, regression suites no one trusts, and bug reports that slip through anyway.

There’s a smarter way to structure your QA approach. And no—it doesn’t involve memorizing a certification binder.

👉 Read the full breakdown at QAJourney.net
Built from the trenches. Not textbooks.

If this post saved you from writing another bloated test plan no one reads…
You can fuel the next teardown here:
👉 buymeacoffee.com/qajourney Because flaky tests are bad—but flaky funding’s worse.