ou’ll often come across three main “types” of exploratory testing – freestyle, scenario-based, and strategy-based. But these “types” aren’t really types of exploratory testing at all – they are just different ways of organizing your exploratory testing sessions.

Each gives you a different balance of freedom and focus. None of them are mutually exclusive – in fact, you’ll often combine several in practice. What matters isn’t the label, but whether the structure helps you work with your teams needs.

What is exploratory testing?

Exploratory testing in software isn’t the chaotic “click around until you find something” that some blogs make it sound like. Done well, it’s a disciplined approach – one that combines human intuition with adaptable structure to uncover issues scripted tests miss.

Exploratory testing means making decisions about what to try next based on what you just observed. It’s testing with your brain switched on – finding the unknown unknowns. Instead of following a fixed script, you’re investigating, reacting, and probing areas that look promising or risky.

That’s why exploratory testing is so good at surfacing bugs that scripted checks miss. It turns testing into a conversation between the tester and the product: try something, see what happens, let that guide your next move. While automated testing has its place, exploratory testing leverages human creativity and intuition in ways that scripts simply cannot.

Types vs techniques

Before we get into the different types of exploratory testing, let’s clear up an important distinction that tend to trip people up:

• Structuring approaches (what most people mean by "types") are about how you organize a session – i.e. freestyle, scenario-based, session-based etc.
• Techniques are the specific testing methods you use while exploring – like boundary testing, error guessing, or equivalence partitioning.

The two often overlap in practice, but they're not the same thing. Keeping that clear makes it easier to design your sessions in a way that's purposeful rather than ad hoc.

Different ways to structure exploratory testing

Exploratory testing doesn’t come in fixed “types” so much as different ways you can organize a session. Each approach gives you a slightly different balance of freedom and structure, and in practice you’ll often mix and match them. Below are some common structures teams use, with notes on when they work best and what to watch out for.

Freestyle exploratory testing

Completely unstructured, just pick up the product and start exploring.

When it works well: Early product exploration, when you’re brand new to a feature, or when you only have a short window to get a feel for quality.
The challenges: Hard to track coverage or report systematically. Great for quick insights, not so great when someone asks “how much did you test?”

Scenario-based exploratory testing

You anchor exploration to realistic user workflows. Instead of random clicking, you follow paths a real user might take, like signing up and making a first purchase.

When it works well: Customer-facing features, onboarding flows, or any situation where user behavior matters. This approach works particularly well alongside user acceptance testing where stakeholder involvement is crucial.
The benefits: More realistic, easier to explain, and ensures testing aligns with actual user priorities.

Session-based exploratory testing (SBTM)

Exploration within a defined timebox, guided by a charter (“explore password reset flows for 60 minutes”). You take notes as you go.

When it works well: When you need both freedom and accountability, or when stakeholders want to see progress.
The trade-off: You get structure, but reporting quality depends heavily on note-taking. Sometimes you end up with verbose logs that aren’t easy to scan.

Strategy-based exploratory testing

Exploration with a lens – for example, focusing specifically on security, performance, usability, or integration points.

When it works well: When you need to cover specific risks or want to make use of specialist skills within your team.
The value: Makes sure you don’t just cover happy paths and keeps attention on important non-functional areas.

Pair exploratory testing

Two testers (or a tester and a developer) explore together – one drives, one observes and suggests.

When it works well: Complex features, onboarding new testers, or when you want to generate richer test ideas.
The trade-off: Uses more time and people, but tends to uncover more and spark creative thinking. Remember though, anyone can test if you need more people.

Bug hunts

Focused, time-boxed exploration aimed at surfacing as many issues as possible, often run as a team exercise.

When it works well: Before big releases, as a quick quality check, or as a collaborative team-building activity.
The approach: Can layer on other structures – e.g. scenario-based bug hunts or timed sessions.

Ad hoc testing

Opportunistic exploration outside of formal sessions, like quickly checking a fix or noticing something odd while working.

When it happens: Anytime throughout development.
The value: Keeps a constant pulse on quality and often catches issues before they grow.

The overlap reality

These “types” aren’t neat, separate boxes. Real sessions are hybrids. You might run a scenario-based bug hunt, time-boxed into 30 minutes, with pairs of testers. Or do strategy-based exploration focused on usability while also capturing ideas with a tool.

That’s not a flaw but the point. Exploratory testing is adaptable. The structure should fit the context and not the other way around.

Making exploratory testing work in practice

The sweet spot is finding enough structure to make exploration trackable, while keeping the flexibility that makes it powerful. Too little structure, and you can’t answer “what did we cover?” Too much, and you lose the creativity that makes exploratory testing valuable.

Practical ways to strike that balance:

• Use test prompts instead of scripts – short cues that guide exploration without dictating every step.
• Track coverage with simple pass/fail marks or notes.
• Capture insights that inform future testing, not just evidence of what passed.
• Evolve your test plans as the product grows – add new checks when you find bugs, refine prompts as you learn.

For teams just starting with structured testing approaches, our guide on getting started with manual testing gives you a foundation that works well with exploratory methods.

Exploratory testing works best when it’s treated as a discipline: structured enough to report on, but free enough to let testers think.

Bringing together the right types of exploratory testing

Rather than worrying about which “type” is the right one, focus on the setup that fits your goals, team, and constraints. New features might call for scenario-based sessions, risky areas might demand strategy-driven exploration, and early prototypes might benefit from freestyle poking around. Most teams use a blend.

What matters most is that your structure helps you learn quickly and gives your team useful answers about quality. And if you’re looking for a tool to support that balance, a checklist-style test manager like Testpad can make it easier – flexible prompts for exploration, lightweight tracking for coverage, and simple ways to involve guest testers when you need extra eyes.

When you’re choosing testing tools, look for ones that support this balance. A checklist-style approach can give you lightweight structure without the overhead of rigid test cases. That’s the philosophy behind Testpad – designed to make exploratory testing easier to organize, share, and track, whether it’s your core team or guest testers jumping in for extra coverage.

If you’d like to see what that looks like in practice, you can try Testpad free for 30 days – no credit card needed.

If you liked this article, consider sharing