The Testsigma Quality Awards are in their second year. Quality work is invisible when it goes well, and nobody sends a note about the release that didn&#8217;t break. Every World Testers Day we fix that for a few teams.



Nominations came in across all four categories this year, from customer QA teams of every size, and the panel judged them on the strength of the story and impact. Quality Champion of the Year is the one category that goes to a person rather than a team. It went to Yasna Adhikari, Automation Test Specialist at Hansard Global.



A test at Hansard Global would find an element, click it, and come back green. Green meant the click happened. Whether the policy behind it did the right thing was a separate question, and nobody was asking it the same way twice.



<div id="toc_container" class="no_bullets">Table Of Contents<ul class="toc_list"><li><a href="#Automation_at_scale_with_no_shared_definition_of_a_test">1 Automation at scale, with no shared definition of a test</a></li><li><a href="#One_agreed_way_of_building_a_test">2 One agreed way of building a test</a></li><li><a href="#A_month_of_regression_down_to_two_weeks">3 A month of regression, down to two weeks</a></li><li><a href="#Why_Yasna_won_Quality_Champion_of_the_Year">4 Why Yasna won Quality Champion of the Year</a></li><li><a href="#The_part_worth_stealing">5 The part worth stealing</a></li></ul></div>
<h2 id="h-automation-at-scale-with-no-shared-definition-of-a-test" class="wp-block-heading">Automation at scale, with no shared definition of a test</h2>



Hansard Global is an international life assurance and savings provider, and the software behind that is five integrated web applications, each one&#8217;s data and outcomes feeding the next. Life insurance rules are dense. Some workflows can&#8217;t continue until an outcome or a settlement lands, so a test fires, then waits for a person to pick it back up.



Yasna Adhikari&#8217;s team wasn&#8217;t short of automation. They&#8217;d built plenty of it. The problem was that everyone had a slightly different idea of what a test should look like, what counted as reusable, what needed verifying, and what evidence to capture. Effort drained into manual intervention, keeping evidence current, and keeping execution results lined up with Xray.



Hansard had automation, people, tools and experience. It didn&#8217;t yet have one way of putting them together.



<h2 id="h-one-agreed-way-of-building-a-test" class="wp-block-heading">One agreed way of building a test</h2>



So the team settled that first. One shared shape for a test, version control tied to releases, stronger verification, better evidence, agreed once and then built to instead of reinvented scenario by scenario.



Then they went after the gap between automated and fully automated. Those workflows that triggered an action and then sat waiting for a human once a settlement landed now close through Testsigma&#8217;s APIs. Smoke coverage got wider, end-to-end testing expanded, API testing came in, and the Testsigma-Xray link got tighter.



Yasna&#8217;s reasoning was short. Script count was never the measure. The quality of the feedback those scripts give back is.



<h2 id="h-a-month-of-regression-down-to-two-weeks" class="wp-block-heading">A month of regression, down to two weeks</h2>



Coverage now runs at roughly 80% across the major functional and end-to-end areas. The smoke suite finishes in about an hour. A full regression pack, end-to-end tests included, went from a month to around two weeks.



Manual intervention in the long workflows has dropped, with APIs handling the outcomes and settlements that used to need someone standing by. Execution status and evidence capture automatically through Xray, so the team spends less time maintaining records and more time reading results.



The change Yasna values most doesn&#8217;t show up in any of those numbers. Her team no longer accepts an element being found and clicked as proof. A pass has to show the right thing happened and the expected response followed.



&#8220;Yasna&#8217;s recognition as Testsigma&#8217;s Quality Champion of the Year is thoroughly deserved. She has been instrumental in driving the adoption and maturity of test automation within our organisation, consistently demonstrating a strong commitment to quality, innovation and continuous improvement. Her passion for delivering reliable, efficient testing practices has had a significant positive impact on both our team and the wider business. We are delighted to see her contributions recognised by the wider testing community.&#8221;



Mathew Oasgood, Test Manager, Hansard Global Plc



<h2 id="h-why-yasna-won-quality-champion-of-the-year" class="wp-block-heading">Why Yasna won Quality Champion of the Year</h2>



What tipped it for the panel was that her change outlives the project. A suite can be rebuilt. A definition of &#8220;passed&#8221; that five applications and a whole team hold to is harder to build and harder to lose, and it keeps paying after Yasna moves on to the next thing.



<h2 id="h-the-part-worth-stealing" class="wp-block-heading">The part worth stealing</h2>



If your suite is growing and your confidence isn&#8217;t, the gap probably isn&#8217;t coverage. Write down what your team accepts as proof that a test passed. If three people give you three answers, that&#8217;s the work.



Congratulations, Yasna. A green test at Hansard means something now, and everyone who has to trust it knows exactly what. That&#8217;s a bar worth being recognised for, and the whole team is better for where you set it.

Experienced QA Professional with 7 years of hands-on expertise across Functional, Automation, Performance, and Security testing. Proven ability to manage the complete QA lifecycle, from requirement analysis and test planning to execution and release validation. Strong in building reliable test strategies, improving product stability, and collaborating closely with cross-functional teams to ensure high-quality, secure, and high-performing applications.

Nagasai Krishna Javvadi

Testsigma Quality Awards 2026: Quality Champion of the Year – Yasna Adhikari, Hansard Global

The Testsigma Quality Awards are in their second year. Quality work is invisible when it goes well, and nobody sends a note about the release that didn&#8217;t break. Every World Testers Day we fix that for a few teams.



Nominations came in across all four categories this year, from customer QA teams of every size, and the panel judged them on the strength of the story and impact. The Everyone Tests Award goes to a team that made testing something the whole organisation gets the benefit of, instead of a queue that forms in front of QA. It went to Space42.



Every new feature Space42 shipped added one more thing to manually check before the next release. The platform was adding features fast. You can do that arithmetic in your head, and Devendra Singh Josan&#8217;s team did.



<div id="toc_container" class="no_bullets">Table Of Contents<ul class="toc_list"><li><a href="#Growing_faster_than_QA_could_check">1 Growing faster than QA could check</a></li><li><a href="#Stability_first_coverage_second">2 Stability first, coverage second</a></li><li><a href="#60_automated_in_just_over_four_months">3 60% automated in just over four months</a></li><li><a href="#Why_Space42_won_The_Everyone_Tests_Award">4 Why Space42 won The Everyone Tests Award</a></li><li><a href="#The_part_worth_stealing">5 The part worth stealing</a></li></ul></div>
<h2 id="h-growing-faster-than-qa-could-check" class="wp-block-heading">Growing faster than QA could check</h2>



Space42 is the Abu Dhabi space technology company, and its QA team had been working the way good QA teams work: close to developers and product, validating new features as they were built, catching defects, running a regression pass before every release.



That held until the platform scaled. More features meant more workflows, more workflows meant more manual regression, and holding the same coverage at the same speed got harder every single cycle.&nbsp;



Two ways out were obvious and both were bad. Slow the releases down, or test less of the product.



<h2 id="h-stability-first-coverage-second" class="wp-block-heading">Stability first, coverage second</h2>



The team went after the hours instead, and they were deliberate about the order. Key workflows first, the ones eating the most manual time. Then stability, before anyone chased a coverage number, because a suite that fails at random costs more attention than the manual pass it replaced.



Only after that did they widen it. The target Devendra set the team was testing that comes back faster, stays consistent, and doesn&#8217;t get harder to maintain as the platform keeps growing. A bigger pile of scripts was never the goal.



The result is that a change now gets tested as it lands, whether or not a tester is free to look at it. QA didn&#8217;t get smaller. Its reach got bigger.



<h2 id="h-60-automated-in-just-over-four-months" class="wp-block-heading">60% automated in just over four months</h2>



Roughly 60% of Space42&#8217;s current platform scope runs on automation today, covering the key modules and critical workflows that used to eat the most manual hours. Regression that meant serial manual passes now runs in parallel and comes back faster.



That gives the team back real time, and they spend it where automation can&#8217;t help: new features, edge cases, and the failures a script won&#8217;t flag on its own.



What the team is proudest of isn&#8217;t the 60%. It&#8217;s the four months. They moved from a mostly manual regression process to covering the workflows that mattered most, and releases never slowed down to let it happen.



Next marker is 90%. The plan is more of the same: keep the suite stable, keep widening it.



<h2 id="h-why-space42-won-the-everyone-tests-award" class="wp-block-heading">Why Space42 won The Everyone Tests Award</h2>



What tipped it for the panel was the order they worked in. Plenty of teams can point at a coverage number. Space42 earned theirs by fixing stability first, in four months, without asking a single release to wait.



<h2 id="h-the-part-worth-stealing" class="wp-block-heading">The part worth stealing</h2>



Fix stability before you chase a coverage number. A flaky suite at 60% buys you nothing, and a trustworthy one at 60% buys you the rest of the year.



Congratulations to Devendra and the QA team at Space42. Sixty percent in four months is an achievement. The part that lasts is a suite the team believes when it goes red, and that&#8217;s what makes the next 30% possible.

Testsigma Quality Awards 2026: The Everyone Tests Award – Space42

The Testsigma Quality Awards are in their second year. Quality work is invisible when it goes well, and nobody sends a note about the release that didn&#8217;t break. Every World Testers Day we fix that for a few teams.



Nominations came in across all four categories this year, from customer QA teams of every size, and the panel judged them on the strength of the story and impact. Best Use of Agents in Testing goes to a team where the system pursues a goal on its own, plans, acts and retries, while a person sets the objective and reads the outcome. It went to IndusInd Bank, and to the automation programme Digvijay Singh built there.



At IndusInd Bank, getting a testing tool cleared took longer than testing with it.



<div id="toc_container" class="no_bullets">Table Of Contents<ul class="toc_list"><li><a href="#Clearing_security_took_longer_than_testing">1 Clearing security took longer than testing</a></li><li><a href="#One_hour_a_day_for_five_days">2 One hour a day, for five days</a></li><li><a href="#Thirty-six_manual_testers_one_department_at_a_time">3 Thirty-six manual testers, one department at a time</a></li><li><a href="#Regression_finishes_before_the_team_logs_in">4 Regression finishes before the team logs in</a></li><li><a href="#Why_IndusInd_Bank_won_Best_Use_of_Agents_in_Testing">5 Why IndusInd Bank won Best Use of Agents in Testing</a></li><li><a href="#The_part_worth_stealing">6 The part worth stealing</a></li></ul></div>
<h2 id="h-clearing-security-took-longer-than-testing" class="wp-block-heading">Clearing security took longer than testing</h2>



IndusInd Bank is one of India&#8217;s largest private sector banks, and everything its QA team touched had to clear the bank&#8217;s own defences first. A firewall. A WAF layer. Every single Selenium dependency whitelisted one at a time, which took real effort every time. Getting a device meant a trip through procurement.



Testing ended up scattered across a handful of tools, mostly manual, with more effort going into getting set up than into the testing itself.



Digvijay Singh wanted one thing: a single solution that wouldn&#8217;t fight the bank&#8217;s security setup at every turn.



<h2 id="h-one-hour-a-day-for-five-days" class="wp-block-heading">One hour a day, for five days</h2>



The team ran an experiment. An hour a day, five days a week, using Testsigma Copilot to keep widening coverage.&nbsp;



If the team could get that far on an hour a day, his engineers could put in six or seven. That&#8217;s the reason IndusInd Bank onboarded Testsigma at all. Multiple journeys for the main app moved in parallel, and the team started generating test cases straight from screenshots.



<h2 id="h-thirty-six-manual-testers-one-department-at-a-time" class="wp-block-heading">Thirty-six manual testers, one department at a time</h2>



The harder work wasn&#8217;t technical. Close to 36 people had been doing purely manual testing, and plenty of them had real worries about automation touching bank data or reaching outside the network. Queries came in from different departments.



Digvijay took them one department at a time and answered each objection where it was raised. Manual QA staff got reskilled into automation. A few of them now run things on their own.



<h2 id="h-regression-finishes-before-the-team-logs-in" class="wp-block-heading">Regression finishes before the team logs in</h2>



The bank has close to 1,500 test cases automated, and the regression suite is still growing as more journeys go in.



The daily difference is the one the team feels. Testers used to run a manual regression pass and then start testing. Now regression runs on its own before the working day begins, and the report is already sitting there each morning, showing what needs attention.



<h2 id="h-why-indusind-bank-won-best-use-of-agents-in-testing" class="wp-block-heading">Why IndusInd Bank won Best Use of Agents in Testing</h2>



What tipped it for the panel was the perimeter. Unattended regression is one thing on a public web app. It&#8217;s another inside an Indian bank&#8217;s security stack, with close to 36 people who had to be convinced first, one department at a time.



<h2 id="h-the-part-worth-stealing" class="wp-block-heading">The part worth stealing</h2>



If you&#8217;re fighting for budget on automation, don&#8217;t build the business case on a slide. Build one journey yourself, on an hour a day, and show your leadership what a week of that looks like.



Congratulations to Digvijay and the QA team at IndusInd Bank. Thirty-six people moved across, and regression now finishes before anyone walks in. That&#8217;s the slow, unglamorous version of this work, and it&#8217;s the version that holds.

Testsigma Quality Awards 2026: Best Use of Agents in Testing – IndusInd Bank

The Testsigma Quality Awards are in their second year. Quality work is invisible when it goes well, and nobody sends a note about the release that didn&#8217;t break. Every World Testers Day we fix that for a few teams.



Nominations came in across all four categories this year, from customer QA teams of every size, and the panel judged them on the strength of the story and impact. The Quality Bar Award goes to the change that made releases safer or testing leaner, whether that&#8217;s one initiative or a whole function. It went to Spacewell, and to the QA team Arun Subramanian leads.



Spacewell&#8217;s QA team knew exactly which part of the release they dreaded. The last sprint of every two-month cycle was regression, two weeks to retest everything, and two weeks was never enough.



<div id="toc_container" class="no_bullets">Table Of Contents<ul class="toc_list"><li><a href="#Nobody_knew_what_still_worked">1 Nobody knew what still worked</a></li><li><a href="#Two_specialists_became_a_team_of_seven">2 Two specialists became a team of seven</a></li><li><a href="#Critical_bugs_down_to_about_one_a_year">3 Critical bugs, down to about one a year</a></li><li><a href="#Why_Spacewell_won_The_Quality_Bar_Award">4 Why Spacewell won The Quality Bar Award</a></li><li><a href="#The_part_worth_stealing">5 The part worth stealing</a></li></ul></div>
<h2 id="h-nobody-knew-what-still-worked" class="wp-block-heading">Nobody knew what still worked</h2>



Spacewell makes the software that organisations run their buildings and workplaces on. Web, mobile, API, and mobile stretches to kiosk devices. The legacy products had Selenium automation. The newer mobile and web apps had none at all, just functional testing by hand.



So regression became risk-based out of necessity. Run a build, log the bugs, get fixes, retest, move on. Build one might cover 400 test cases and build two only 100, and the other 300 went untested into a release that shipped anyway.



Four or five people carried all of it. Three or four critical bugs reached production every release, and 100 to 115 support tickets came back each cycle. The team priced the obvious fix, building it out in Selenium or Playwright, and the honest estimate was close to a three-year project. The bugs weren&#8217;t going to wait three years.



<h2 id="h-two-specialists-became-a-team-of-seven" class="wp-block-heading">Two specialists became a team of seven</h2>



Spacewell’s fix started with people, not scripts. Automation had been sitting with two people, in their own lane, separate from the five doing functional testing. He merged the lanes.



Seven people now do functional testing, automation, API testing, execution reporting and maintenance as one job. That was the actual goal: getting automation out of being a specialist skill that only two people in the building could touch.



Arun was clear about what he didn&#8217;t want measured. Not script count. He wanted the scripts to mean something as feedback.



<h2 id="h-critical-bugs-down-to-about-one-a-year" class="wp-block-heading">Critical bugs, down to about one a year</h2>



The automated regression suite runs at about 1,500 test cases. Mobile runs against every new build. A full run takes 16 to 20 hours.



Out of those 1,500 cases, a typical run turns up one or two failures on critical or high-priority tests. Maintenance sits under 10 to 15% most years.



Critical production bugs have gone from three or four a release to about one a year. Support tickets are down 50 to 60%. Both numbers moved together, which is the tell that quality actually improved rather than the reporting changing.



Arun&#8217;s own summary: the team just has to worry about quality now, not automation.



&#8220;Winning &#8216;The Quality Bar&#8217; award is a proud moment for Spacewell. Working with Testsigma, our QA team has scaled automation across releases and cut our testing cycles significantly. This recognition belongs to them for their consistency and relentless effort. Congratulations to the entire QA team.&#8221;



Ammar Mannan, CTO, Spacewell



<h2 id="h-why-spacewell-won-the-quality-bar-award" class="wp-block-heading">Why Spacewell won The Quality Bar Award</h2>



What tipped it for the panel was how the Spacewell team solved it. The obvious version of this project is a bigger automation team. They went the other way and made automation everyone&#8217;s job, which is why the numbers held after the first year instead of drifting back.



<h2 id="h-the-part-worth-stealing" class="wp-block-heading">The part worth stealing</h2>



Count how many people on your team can write an automated test. If the answer is two, that number is your real coverage ceiling, whatever your dashboard says.



Congratulations to the QA team at Spacewell and Arun. Three or four critical bugs a release down to about one a year is the kind of number the rest of the business feels without ever knowing who to thank.

Testsigma Blog

Kalyan Srinivas