a1qa and an anonymised online retailer: Ecommerce platform test automation case analysed

Verdict: what is checkable

The evidence grade (this site's label for how a case is sourced: primary with client or press confirmation, secondary when vendor-hosted only.) is secondary: the only source is the vendor's own page; of 24 metrics, 0 are verifiable yes, 0 partial and 24 no. [ev-1055]

Client profile as published

Client
A European online commerce platform (the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)
Segment
Ecommerce and D2C (direct to consumer: a brand that sells its own products online to shoppers without a retailer in between.)
Region
Europe
Channels
ecommerce
Size indicators
about 1,100 automated tests

The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1055]

Systems in scope

  • Ecommerce platform: named in the client description ("A European online commerce platform") and the scope list ("search, cart and checkout, order status and customer notifications"); platform not named

Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1055]

Problem as stated

The client had about 1,100 automated tests that its engineers had stopped trusting. In the critical subset 18% of tests were flaky, and 24% of reported failures were not reproducible product defects. Reruns and maintenance took about 45 engineering hours a week, and a regression decision took about 2 working days. The client wanted to know which tests to keep, modernize or replace. [ev-1055]

engineers no longer trusted the suite (quoted from the source)

Approach

Testing types
automation (main scope: automation)
Team shape
3 automation engineers, 1 senior quality engineering architect, and part-time DevOps support
Duration
12 weeks for assessment and the bounded rescue pilot
Engagement model
project
Tooling named in the source
Selenium, Java, TestNG, REST Assured, Jenkins, Docker, Allure, Git

Metrics claimed

Metrics as published, with who claims each and what this site could check.
MetricValueUnitClaimed byVerifiableEvidence
flaky test rate (page title)18% to 4.6%%vendornoev-1056
flaky test rate before the engagement18%vendornoev-1057
failures that were not product defects before the engagement24%vendornoev-1058
weekly maintenance and rerun effort before the engagementabout 45engineering hours per weekvendornoev-1059
CI runs within budget without rerun before the engagement52%vendornoev-1060
regression decision time before the engagementabout 2working daysvendornoev-1061
planned releases per month before the engagement2releases per monthvendornoev-1061
tests stabilised170testsvendornoev-1062
tests replaced150testsvendornoev-1063
tests retiredone hundredtestsvendornoev-1064
weeks for assessment and pilot (stat block)12weeksvendornoev-1065
QA experts assigned (stat block)5QA expertsvendornoev-1066
tests in the inherited suite (stat block)1,100testsvendornoev-1067
tests in the audited critical subset (stat block)420testsvendornoev-1068
accepted automated tests in the stabilised suite (stat block)320testsvendornoev-1069
flaky test rate reduction (stat block)13.4%vendornoev-1070
false-failure rate decrease (stat block)17%vendornoev-1071
working days saved per new accepted scenario (stat block)2.7working daysvendornoev-1072
CI runs within budget without rerun increase (stat block)39%vendornoev-1073
hours saved per regression decision (stat block)17hoursvendornoev-1074
additional planned releases per month (stat block)1releases per monthvendornoev-1075
engineering hours freed per week (stat block)29engineering hours per weekvendornoev-1076
engineering hours returned to new work per week (stat block)29engineering hours per weekvendornoev-1077
regression and triage cost (stat block)32%vendornoev-1078

What the case does not say

  • Duration over which the metric held.
  • Cost.
  • Whether the client is still a client.
  • Date of the work.

Reading notes for a buyer

This case speaks to the scenario “Peak-season readiness in 90 days” and feeds dimension D4 (Test automation evidence) of the methodology. A question to put to a1qa:

How long was the agreed validation window behind the flaky-test rate, and has that rate held on the accepted tests since the pilot? [ev-1055]

Source and verification

Source
eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%
Published
not dated by the vendor
Verified
2026-10-30
Evidence grade
secondary
Corroborating sources
none found
Evidence records for this case. First 12 of 24 shown; the rest open below.
IdClaimSourceClassGradePublishedVerified
ev-1055eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1056Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1057The critical subset produced an 18% flaky test rate.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-105824% of reported failures did not represent a reproducible product defect.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1059Maintenance and rerun work consumed about 45 engineering hours each week.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1060Only 52% of CI runs completed within the agreed 90-minute budget and without rerun.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1061A regression decision for the selected scope took about 2 working days, limiting the product area to 2 planned releases per month.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1062After stabilizing 170 tests whose business intent and architecture remained useful,eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1063Next, the team replaced 150 tests that could not be repaired economically.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1064Ultimately, one hundred obsolete or duplicate tests were retired from the pilot scope.eCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-106512 weeks for assessment and the bounded rescue piloteCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-10665 QA experts assigned to the projecteCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
Show 12 more evidence records
Remaining evidence records.
IdClaimSourceClassGradePublishedVerified
ev-10671,100 tests in the inherited suiteeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1068420 tests in the audited critical subseteCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1069320 accepted automated tests in the stabilized critical suiteeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107013.4% reduction in flaky test rate across the agreed validation windoweCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107117% decrease in false-failure rate for the pilot scopeeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-10722.7 working days saved for a new scenario to become an accepted testeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107339% increase in CI runs completed within the 90-minute budget and without reruneCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107417 hours saved per critical scope regression decisioneCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-10751 additional planned release per month after the pilot scope became reliableeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107629 engineering hours freed per week for suite maintenance and rerunseCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107729 engineering hours per week returned to new automated scenarios and exploratory workeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-107832% lower regression and triage cost after ongoing maintenance was includedeCommerce · Flaky tests cut from 18% to 4.6%vendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30

Vendor profile: a1qa. System facet: Ecommerce platform testing vendors.

Positions on this page are computed from the methodology published at /methodology/ and from the evidence records linked on this page. Case study figures are the vendor's or the client's claims as published at the linked source; the "verifiable" column states what this site could check. The site does not recommend vendors, does not accept paid placement and does not publish rates. Last computed: 2026-11-03.

Published by the editor of retailqavendors.com. Last reviewed .