Regression testing often gets framed as a choice: automate it all, or keep doing it manually. In practice, the strongest regression suites split the work deliberately, because manual and automated testing catch different things.
Automated regression excels at repetition: the same checks, run the same way, every single release, without fatigue. It's fast, consistent, and ideal for stable core flows (authentication, checkout, data integrity, API contracts) where the expected result never changes.
Manual testing is better at anything that needs human judgment: Does this actually feel right? Is this confusing? Does this look broken on this specific device? It also catches issues automation wasn't written to look for, because a human notices things a script doesn't check.
A reasonable starting point: automate the regression checks on stable, high-traffic, high-risk paths that run on every release. Keep manual testing for new features (while they're still changing), exploratory testing, visual/UX review, and anything automation hasn't been written for yet.
A feature that's manually tested today because it's new should move into the automated suite once it stabilizes. The split isn't fixed; it should shift as parts of the product settle down and new parts come online.
The goal isn't maximum automation. It's spending manual effort on what needs human judgment, and automated effort on what needs consistency.
Talk to our QA team about building a regression testing strategy.