AI coding agents: 41% of teams say quality improved, 37% say it's faster but worse
The mabl 2026 State of Quality Engineering report finds teams using AI coding agents split almost evenly between better quality and faster but lower-quality code. Teams spend 20% of the week verifying AI-generated tests, and 35% of bugs are still found by customers.
4 October 2026
Among teams using AI coding agents, opinion on quality is split almost down the middle. The mabl 2026 State of Quality Engineering report finds 41% say code quality has improved and 37% say the code is faster but lower quality. Same tools, opposite outcomes.
Why the split exists
The report points to what happens after the code is written. Teams spend on average 20% of their working week manually verifying AI-generated tests, and 35% of production bugs are still discovered by customers rather than by the team. Where checks are automated and owned, quality rises. Where AI output is simply merged because it looks fine, bugs reach users.
That reading matches other 2026 data. Sonar’s developer survey found AI now accounts for around 42% of committed code, yet only 48% of developers always check it before committing.
The practical takeaway for non-technical buyers
The tool is not the differentiator. Claude Code, Cursor and Copilot are all capable. The difference is the process wrapped around them: review, test coverage, and release discipline. Two agencies using the same AI tools can deliver very different products.
A useful test is to ask how bugs are found. If the honest answer is “users tell us”, you are buying the 37% outcome.
So what
For founders and product leads, “built with AI” should now prompt a follow-up question rather than reassurance: how is it verified? Choose a partner who can show you test coverage, review practice and a release process, not just a fast demo. BuildApps combines AI-assisted speed with that discipline across custom software development and mobile builds. If you are weighing a project, start a conversation.