AI-assisted development has made building a feature cheap. Reviewing it has not got any cheaper, and on most teams nobody has decided who closes the gap.
CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA, September 22, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ — Nearly one in three defects that BetterQA has reported to its clients so far in 2026 was rated critical or high severity. The independent software testing company, founded in 2018, says the figure reflects a gap that has opened across the industry: teams now build features faster than ever, and most have not changed how much they test to match.
Those are not cosmetic issues. Defects at that level are typically the ones that stop a user completing a task, expose data that should stay private, or produce a result someone downstream relies on. They were found because someone outside the team that wrote the code went looking for them.
AI-assisted coding has made writing a feature close to free. It has not made checking one any cheaper. The failures that follow are familiar: a feature that works in the demo and fails on a slow connection, a permission copied from another endpoint that nobody rechecked, a form that validates the five cases someone thought of and misses the sixth.
Individually these look minor. They stop being minor when a paying customer, an auditor or a security researcher finds them first. For a regulated product, the real cost is not the fix but the compliance conversation that follows it.
Review also tends to weaken under volume rather than hold steady. When there is more code than anyone has time to read, checking slides toward approving. And once a codebase grows past what one person can hold in their head, failures start to appear where nobody was looking: two scheduled jobs never meant to run at the same time, or two features quietly depending on the same cache in incompatible ways.
BetterQA’s answer is testing that sits outside the team that wrote the code. Manual testers catch what nobody thought to script. Automation repeats the checks a person cannot run on every release. Security testing, and compliance testing for healthcare (ISO 13485, FDA 21 CFR Part 11) and financial services (PCI DSS, transaction reconciliation, audit trail verification), covers risk that a functional test was never designed to find.
Every engagement includes five tools BetterQA built in house, at no extra cost: BugBoard and Flows for test generation and browser automation, Auditi for accessibility testing, BetterFlow for delivery tracking, and the AI Security Toolkit for security scanning. None of them replace a tester’s judgment. They exist so that review keeps up with release volume instead of turning into a rubber stamp.
Engagements can begin with a two-week proof of concept run against the client’s own codebase, so the decision to bring in a testing partner rests on what the team has actually seen.
“Every team we talk to is shipping faster than they are checking. That is not a criticism, it is simply where the industry is,” said Tudor Brad, who founded BetterQA with Ana Brad in 2018. “When something breaks, the question is whether you hear about it from a customer or from us before it ships. Most teams already know which they would prefer. They just have not built that half of the pipeline yet.”
About BetterQA
BetterQA (Better Quality Assurance SRL) is an independent software testing company founded in 2018 by Tudor Brad and Ana Brad and based in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Its clients span 8 countries, and it holds 64 client reviews on Clutch with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5. More at betterqa.co.
Tudor Brad
BetterQA
+40 751 289 399
brad@betterqa.co
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability
for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this
article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Media gallery
