How Modern Software Teams Test Without QA and Still Deliver Quality
More and more software teams—especially those working in DevOps and CI/CD environments—are choosing to work without a dedicated QA or tester role. For many engineers and managers, this idea immediately raises concerns. Does removing QA mean less testing? Does software quality inevitably suffer?
In reality, teams without QA are not teams without testing. Instead, quality becomes a shared responsibility, built directly into everyday engineering work. This approach is common in Big Tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Netflix. However, it only works under specific conditions. In this article, we explore how testing works in teams without QA, why companies adopt this model, what risks it introduces, and how roles like SDET help maintain software quality at scale.
What Does It Really Mean to Work Without QA?
A team without a dedicated QA role does not remove testing from the development process. What it removes is the assumption that testing happens later or is handled by someone else. Developers are expected to validate their own changes using automated tests, while quality checks are enforced continuously through the CI/CD pipeline.
In this model, testing is a core part of the definition of “done.” Code that lacks meaningful test coverage or introduces regressions simply does not progress. Responsibility for quality is collective rather than delegated. Instead of relying on the idea that “QA will catch it,” teams assume that quality must be ensured before code is merged.
Why Companies Move Away from Traditional QA Roles
Modern software delivery is fast by default. Continuous delivery, frequent releases, and small incremental changes leave little space for long, manual testing phases. In such environments, a separate QA step often becomes a bottleneck rather than a safeguard.
Companies that move away from traditional QA roles typically invest heavily in test automation and fast feedback loops. The goal is not to test more at the end of development, but to test earlier and continuously. By integrating testing directly into development workflows, teams reduce handovers, shorten feedback cycles, and catch issues when they are still inexpensive to fix.
The Hidden Risks of Working Without QA
Removing a dedicated QA role introduces real risks. Developers naturally focus on implementing functionality and often validate only expected, happy-path scenarios. Edge cases, negative paths, and unusual user behavior are easier to miss.
This is where experienced testers traditionally add significant value. Their strength lies in thinking about risk, misuse, and failure modes rather than confirming assumptions. Teams without QA must consciously compensate for this gap by planning exploratory testing, reviewing test coverage critically, and continuously discussing quality risks during refinement sessions and retrospectives.
Without these safeguards, the “no QA” model can quietly turn into “no real quality control,” with defects surfacing late and confidence in releases slowly eroding.
Can Developers Fully Replace QA?
Developers can take ownership of testing, but only when testing is treated as a first-class engineering responsibility. Automated tests must be mandatory rather than optional. CI pipelines should fail fast and block changes that reduce quality. Teams also need a clear understanding of different test levels and their purpose.
Most importantly, quality cannot depend on individual heroics. It must be enforced through process, tooling, and team culture. When this foundation is missing, the absence of QA becomes visible very quickly in the form of regressions, flaky releases, and growing technical debt.
What Is an SDET and Why Does the Role Exist?
SDET stands for Software Development Engineer in Test. The role emerged most prominently at Microsoft as a response to the challenge of maintaining quality in large, complex systems.
An SDET is an engineer with strong development skills who focuses on testing-related problems. Rather than performing manual testing, SDETs design and maintain automated test frameworks, build testing tools, and ensure that quality scales alongside the product. They work closely with developers and often write production-quality code that supports testing, reliability, and CI/CD integration.
The SDET role exists to solve a critical problem: how to achieve scalable, reliable quality without relying on slow and fragile manual testing processes.
Microsoft and the Evolution of the SDET Model
Microsoft was one of the first companies to formalize the SDET role, creating a clear career path for engineers specializing in test automation and quality tooling. Over time, however, the company evolved its approach.
In many teams—especially those building web and cloud services—testing responsibilities were gradually absorbed by developers. The formal SDET role was reduced or removed in parts of the organization, but testing itself did not disappear. Instead, ownership of quality moved closer to the teams building the product, supported by strong automation, shared tooling, and consistent engineering standards.
This evolution reflects a broader industry trend: fewer specialized testing roles, but higher expectations for every engineer when it comes to software quality.
How Big Tech Companies Approach QA Today
Companies such as Google, Meta, Netflix, and Uber are often cited as examples of organizations where many teams operate without dedicated QA roles. In these environments, developers are expected to write extensive automated tests, and quality is enforced through tooling, code reviews, and sophisticated CI systems.
At the same time, not all large organizations follow this model. Amazon and Apple, for example, continue to rely on more traditional QA structures in many areas, particularly where hardware, security, user experience, or regulatory constraints play a major role. This demonstrates that there is no single, universal QA model that fits every product and every context.
QA as a Platform Instead of a Team Role
A common compromise is to remove QA from individual product teams while retaining strong quality expertise at the organizational level. In this model, QA or Quality Engineering teams act as a platform. They build tools, define testing standards, and support teams rather than executing tests on their behalf.
This approach aligns well with the principles of Team Topologies. It allows product teams to move quickly while still benefiting from deep testing expertise and shared quality infrastructure.
When Does a No-QA Model Actually Work?
Operating without a dedicated QA role makes sense only when teams reach a certain level of maturity. Strong automation, stable CI/CD pipelines, and a culture that values quality are essential. Teams must be willing to reflect on failures, continuously improve their testing practices, and treat defects as learning opportunities rather than inconveniences.
Without these foundations, removing QA is not a strategic improvement. It is simply a hidden cost that will surface later through slower delivery, unstable releases, and loss of trust.
Conclusion
Eliminating a dedicated QA role is not a goal in itself. It is an organizational decision that shifts responsibility for quality directly to engineering teams. Big Tech companies show that this model can work, but only with serious investment in automation, tooling, and engineering culture.
Quality does not disappear when QA disappears. Instead, it becomes part of the product—and part of the daily work of every engineer involved in building it.
