Professionals · code 2519
Software and applications developers and analysts not elsewhere classified
AI can write the tests. Deciding what 'working' means is still a tester.
Writing testing policies and test plans are where AI could take a fair chunk. Checking programs do what they should and installing software and hardware are mostly out of its reach.
What they actually do (and what else they get called)
This unit group covers software and applications developers and analysts not classified elsewhere in Minor Group 251: Software and Applications Developers and Analysts. For instance, the group includes those professionals specializing in quality assurance, including software testing. In such cases tasks would include - (a) developing and documenting software testing plans; (b) installing software and hardware and configuring operating system software in preparation for testing; (c) verifying that programs function according to user requirements and established guidelines; (d) executing, analysing and documenting results of software application tests and information and telecommunication systems tests; (e) developing and implementing software and information system testing policies, procedures and scripts. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Quality assurance analyst (computers) - Software tester - Systems tester
- software tester
- ICT auditor manager
- ICT test analyst
- ICT quality assurance manager
- ICT disaster recovery analyst
- data quality specialist
Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.
45 / 100
Changing significantly
AI could do a real share of the everyday tasks. The job is changing shape, not vanishing.
Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.
The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 3
395 of 427 for holding up against AI
Not quite your week? Make it yours ↓
Why this score?
The ILO rated each of this job's 5 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 55 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 55 = 45.
That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 3”: Most of the tasks are affected.
This job rates 11.6 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.
from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use
Man v Bot · compare
Who holds up better?
Software and applications developers and analysts not elsewhere classified 45
vGo on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.
Man v Bot
Where the bot helps, and where the human wins
Bot
What AI takes
The routine stuff. You may not miss it.
- Writing test scripts.
- Test plans and documentation.
- Running and reporting tests.
Man
What people still do better
Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.
- Judging what users actually need.
- Exploratory testing.
- Quality decisions.
Both
What's arriving
New work that only exists because the AI does.
- Testing AI systems.
- AI red-teaming.
- Automated test generation.
Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.
Meet your two rivals
They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.
The AI
Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.
Threat level: Medium
59 could do without you
It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 76 of 100.
The robot
The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.
How much it matters here: Lower
12 how hands-on
Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.
So could a robot do the physical part?
Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.
Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 16 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.
hands-on
and cramped
Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on
The small print
They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.
From O*NET, averaged across 15 US jobs , so treat it as rough.
finger skill 21.2 · hand skill 17.7 · cramped spaces 7.8 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50
estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement
The job, task by task
Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.
AI's favourite task here scores 68, against an average of 55. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.
- 68
Developing and implementing software and information system testing policies, procedures and scripts.
Medium - 67
Developing and documenting software testing plans
Medium - 66
Executing, analysing and documenting results of software application tests and information and telecommunication systems tests
Medium - 40
Verifying that programmes function according to user requirements and established guidelines
Low - 35
Installing software and hardware and configuring operating system software in preparation for testing
Low
5 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's
from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use
New · the weekly task audit
Your week, your score
The score above assumes software testers spend the same time on every task. You don't. Slide each task to how much of your week it takes, and we'll re-weight the same ILO ratings to fit your job.
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
- Some
Your score
45 / 100
Same as the job as a whole, so far.
Move the sliders to make it yours.
The job as a whole: 45 / 100
Link copied.
Nothing you enter leaves your browser. The link just carries your slider positions.
Sidekick or replacement?
A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.
- AI helps you
- 76
- AI does it for you
- 59
Sidekick wins, by 17 points.
How good a match is this?
3 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.
estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2611, 2613, 2632
Meanwhile, in real life…
Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?
Out of every 100 conversations
worked through it together handed it over
The small print
Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 13.04% of the conversations.
The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 15 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.
These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.
observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product
So, should software testers be worried?
Short answer: not worried, but paying attention. The job is changing.
Much of it is exposed. Test policies, test plans and running tests are rated Medium; checking user requirements and installing software are Low. AI takes on writing and running tests; judgement about quality stays human.
Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.
Where this job could lead
None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →
How are the neighbours doing?
There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 62. This one is below the family average.
- Creative and performing artists not e… 87
- Veterinarians 86
- Dentists 85
- Religious professionals 83
- Dancers and choreographers 81
- Health professionals not elsewhere cl… 81
- Early childhood educators 79
- Visual artists 79
- Paramedical practitioners 77
- Optometrists and ophthalmic opticians 76
- Audiologists and speech therapists 76
- Nursing professionals 75
- Primary school teachers 74
- Specialist medical practitioners 73
- Environmental and occupational health… 72
- Musicians, singers and composers 72
- Social work and counselling professio… 72
- Physiotherapists 72
- Special needs teachers 72
- Farming, forestry and fisheries advis… 72
- Generalist medical practitioners 71
- Mining engineers, metallurgists and r… 71
- Secondary education teachers 70
- Midwifery professionals 70
- Civil engineers 70
- Engineering professionals not elsewhe… 70
- Judges 69
- Electrical engineers 69