Some say that testing hours should be less than development hours when estimating a development project. But I don't fully agree with this. (take an example of web application with shopping cart).
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
There's no inherent preset relationship between development time and testing time. And there's no inherent preset relationship between development/test staff ratio, and development/test time ratio.
The time required to test something is contextual - it depends on factors that may have little or nothing to do with how long it took to develop that feature.
As Joe and Lyndon have said, it depends.
Some of the factors that impact how much test time will be needed relative to development time are:
Those are just a few factors that can affect the balance between development and testing time, and one of the reasons I detest the formula approach.
I seem to remember a great blog post about this a few years ago. I just wish I could remember who it was by or where it was.
Typically, testing time is less than development time. A lot of people say 30-40% of development time, but personally, whenever I've received only this much time, I typically feel as though I haven't done as much I should have. The actual time will always vary. Sometimes it ends up being much more than development time. This will also vary greatly depending on the approach that's been taken by the development team as a whole (including testers). If you're on a traditional project, testing time is going to be longer. On agile teams, I've found my testing time to be significantly shorter.
In the end, the answer is, it depends.