There’s an old chestnut, “You get what you measure,” — but in QA, measuring the right things in order to get what you want is more complicated than it looks. Too often, teams fixate on individual performance statistics (such as the number of test cases written) or vanity numbers (like raw test counts). Those metrics don’t tell you how well your automated test coverage is working. Nor do they help you ship faster or with fewer bugs.
Most QA tools lack integration with real application behavior. They rarely expose metrics such as workflow-level coverage, persistent flake patterns, or the investigation and maintenance burden of test failures. That leaves teams defaulting to what’s easiest to count—test volume, execution counts, or IC-level stats—instead of what’s most valuable to improve. When the wrong metrics drive decisions, test coverage stops doing what it should: helping teams identify risks and respond before they impact users.
#1: Percentage of plan covered
Coverage only matters if it maps to what the product actually does. That’s why, earlier in this series, we emphasized the importance of outlining all testable workflows before automation begins. This outline becomes your coverage plan—a shared source of truth that conveys which user flows are critical and which are in or out of scope.
The metric: (Functional workflows tested and passing) / (Total defined workflows)
Why it matters:
Teams can’t prioritize or measure progress without a clear understanding of what they’re trying to cover. Without a defined plan, test writing becomes reactive, leading to duplicated effort, shallow coverage, and missed critical paths. Having a clear outline helps you prioritize and measure progress in a meaningful way.
A good way to do this is to define workflows using real customer behavior and product epics, then score each permutation separately:
- Add to cart + checkout as guest
- Add to cart + checkout with login
- Add to cart + checkout with saved payment
Target: 80%+ of total workflows should be represented by active, passing tests. Failing tests aren’t coverage.
#2: Unique error signatures per week
Sometimes, multiple tests fail for the same reason. But a good tester knows that if you have ten tests that fail with the same error, there is likely a single problem. A robust test suite should surface failures that are meaningful and distinct, rather than the same noise repeated over and over. Tracking the variety and uniqueness of bugs caught helps validate that your tests are covering new and previously unexplored ground.
The metric: Number of unique failure signatures reported per week
Why it matters:
Low variety might indicate:
- Too many shallow or duplicate tests.
- Gaps in business logic or conditional path testing.
- Overlap between test cases that catch the same issues.
This is a proxy for test suite richness: high-coverage systems expose novel failures when features change.
Target:
There’s no one-size-fits-all number, but if you’re not seeing at least a handful of unique failures each week, your tests probably aren’t exploring enough of your app’s behavior. On the other hand, if every failure is unique, that could mean your app is unstable or your environment is unstable.
- 0–3 unique failures/week → Possibly too narrow or redundant coverage.
- 4–10 unique failures/week → Healthy for most mid-size apps in active development.
- 10+ unique failures/week → Worth investigating: Are they valid regressions or unstable tests?
#3: Percentage of tests skipped or disabled
Skipped tests aren’t tests. They’re promises that aren’t being kept.
The metric: (Total skipped/disabled tests) / (Total planned test suite)
Why it matters:
High skip rates signal that coverage is falling out of sync with the product. If 25% of your suite is skipped, you don’t have 75% coverage—you have 100% uncertainty about 25% of your app.
Target: Less than 5% on any given run.
#4: Flake rate across the test suite
Flaky tests undermine confidence and kill productivity. Track how often a test fails and then passes on a re-run without a code change.
The metric: Flake rate = (# of tests that fail and pass on retry) / (total test runs)
Why it matters:
Flakiness is the hidden enemy of adequate coverage. Teams ignore failures, ship risky code, or waste hours triaging ghosts. At QA Wolf, we pair automation with continuous human oversight. Every failure is reviewed and categorized—so recurring flakes get debugged, not ignored.
Some flakes disappear easily on re-run, masking their actual cost. This metric tracks recurring, low-visibility flake patterns that emerge only over time.
Target: Less than 1% of tests should flake.
#5: Persistent flake incidence rate
The metric: Number of tests that flake at least once in 30% or more of suite runs
Why it matters:
- These tests may appear stable when rerun individually.
- But across multiple runs, they create long-term noise and missed regressions.
Any test that meets this threshold should be investigated for weak selectors, timing issues, or data dependency problems. Persistent flakes are often early indicators of system fragility and are harder to spot than one-off failures.
Target: Aim for zero tests. More than 3, and you may have a training issue.
#6: Time to identify root cause
This metric tracks how quickly your team can determine why a test failed—whether it’s a real bug, a flaky step, or an environmental issue.
The metric: Time from test failure to confirmed root cause (automation or bug)
Why it matters:
- Slow investigations often signal weak assertions or missing context.
- High-quality coverage means failures come with useful metadata—step-by-step traces, video, HARs.
- Fast diagnosis is a trust signal: teams act quickly when failures are clear.
Measure what coverage is actually doing for you
The right metrics help your team ship with confidence by giving you clarity on risk, signal quality, and test effectiveness. The wrong ones waste time, mask problems, and lull teams into a false sense of safety.
These six metrics go beyond vanity counts and reveal what your coverage is actually accomplishing. They demonstrate whether your tests accurately reflect real user behavior, identify meaningful failures, and provide clear, actionable feedback. If your current dashboard can’t answer those questions, it’s not measuring coverage. It’s just counting tests.
.svg){kind=logo}
