Hire — QA
Bugs found before your users find them.
QA engineers — manual and automation — who join an existing product or help stand up a test suite where none exists yet. The same two-week trial and monthly terms apply as any other seat: meet the engineer, confirm the fit, keep going only if it's working.
What a typical QA engagement looks like
- —A QA engineer joins your release cycle, testing against your actual product and edge cases — not a generic checklist
- —Or we build out an automated regression suite for a codebase that currently relies on manual testing alone
- —Mobile and web covered equally — device-matrix testing when an app needs it
- —Bug reports written so an engineer can act on them immediately, not spend time reproducing first
Stack considerations
- —Manual testing where exploratory judgment matters more than repetition (new features, UX edge cases)
- —Automated regression suites where the same paths get tested every release and a human doing it by hand is waste
- —Device and OS-version coverage sized to where your actual users are, not every device that exists
- —Integration with your CI so failing tests block a release instead of getting noticed after
Questions people ask.
Both, and the mix depends on where you are. Automation pays off on stable, repeated paths; manual testing is still where the judgment calls and edge cases get caught, especially on newer features. We'll size the mix to your actual release cadence rather than assume one.
Yes — that's the most common way this starts. A short ramp-up to learn the product, then straight into the release cycle, on the same two-week trial as any other seat.
Both. Given how much of our own work is mobile-first (two apps live in both stores), our QA practice leans mobile-heavy, but the same engineers cover web equally.