# Keep the judgement. Automate the rest.

> Manual QA is slow, inconsistent and easy to skip. Frank automates the repetitive half, so your team keeps the judgement calls.

https://www.usefrank.io/compare/manual-qa

Clicking through every page by hand catches a lot, but it's slow, inconsistent and the first thing to go when a deadline's close. Frank does the repetitive checks on every page, every time.

## Frank and manual QA, compared.

| | Frank | Manual QA |
|---|---|---|
| Checks every page in the sitemap | Yes | Spot checks |
| Lorem ipsum on every page | Yes | By eye |
| Every internal and external link | Yes | Click by click |
| Alt text and accessibility basics | Yes | Rarely |
| Same result every time | Yes | No |
| Page next to its Figma design | Yes | Two tabs |
| Issues pinned for teammates | Yes | Screenshots in Slack |
| Record of what was checked | Yes | If someone writes it down |

## The right tool for the job.

- **Automate with Frank**: Lorem ipsum, broken links, alt text and accessibility basics: checks that are the same on every page and easy to miss by eye.
- **Keep it human**: Copy quality, brand fit, UX and the feel of the design. Pin what you find with markers so it reaches the right person.
- **Do both**: Run Frank first, fix what it finds, then spend your manual review on the things only a person can judge.

## Frequently asked questions about Frank vs manual QA

### Does Frank replace manual QA?

It replaces the repetitive half. Your team still reviews copy, design and UX, and Frank makes sure the mechanical checks are done on every page.

### What should I still check by hand?

English placeholders like “TBC”, the quality of alt text, forms end to end, and anything that needs taste. Pin what you find with markers.