Is BDD Dying? A Conversation with Andy Knight from Cycle Labs

In a recent episode of the Selenium Automation User Group, host Mike sat down with Andy Knight—a seasoned QA professional and current Product Manager at Cycle Labs—to dive into the state of BDD (Behavior Driven Development), the evolution of test automation, and what the future may hold for testing in complex enterprise environments.

The Heart of the Conversation: Is BDD Dying?

Mike kicked things off by referencing Andy’s recent keynote at Test Automation Days in the Netherlands, provocatively titled “Is BDD Dying?” It’s a question many in the testing community have quietly pondered, and Andy brought a nuanced answer: No, BDD isn’t dead—but it’s stalled.

Andy explained that BDD started as a process for aligning product, dev, and QA around a shared language for collaboration. Over time, however, BDD became synonymous with automation tooling rather than cross-functional communication. The human-centric benefits—like shared understanding and discovery—got overshadowed by the race to automate.

Where Did BDD Go Off Track?

According to Andy, the problem wasn’t with the core principles of BDD, which are more relevant than ever. The issue lies in how the community focused almost exclusively on tooling and test automation rather than the collaboration practices that BDD was supposed to foster.

He points out that while tools like Cucumber made BDD approachable through Gherkin syntax, no one really solved the problem of collaborative tooling. Example mapping, discovery sessions, and formulation practices often get skipped entirely. “All we had was the automation phase,” Andy said, “and nobody’s built good tooling for the discovery or collaboration parts.”

The Rise of Low-Code Tools and the Shift in Testing

Mike and Andy also touched on how low-code tools have shifted the landscape. With platforms like Mabl, Testim, and Functionize offering affordable automation options, teams have more choices than ever. But these tools don’t solve the core collaboration problem that BDD originally aimed to fix.

Andy argues that Gherkin is still a valuable contribution to the industry. Even modern AI testing tools default to using Gherkin-like syntax. “Given-When-Then is still a brilliant pattern,” he says. The challenge is helping teams use it as a thinking tool—not just a coding syntax.

Why Cycle Labs Is Doubling Down on Behavior-Driven Thinking

At Cycle Labs, Andy is helping build a testing platform that’s behavior-oriented—not BDD in name, but in spirit. Cycle Labs focuses on enterprise testing, particularly in the supply chain space. These are massive, complex systems with APIs, web apps, mobile devices, scanners, and even robots. Testing in this environment is about more than UI clicks—it’s about making sure candy bars don’t melt on the way to the truck.

Andy made it clear: most of Cycle Labs’ clients don’t care about the jargon of BDD. They just want to know their systems work. But by baking in the principles of behavior-first thinking—clear scenarios, discoverable tests, and collaborative planning—Cycle Labs is helping these organizations do better testing without getting hung up on buzzwords.

On Gherkin, Collaboration, and What’s Missing

A particularly insightful part of the conversation was around the role of Gherkin. Andy admits Gherkin can be intimidating for non-technical folks and is often misused as a pseudo-programming language. But when used properly—as a structured way to describe behaviors—it’s powerful. The key is in lowering the barrier: “Don’t worry about perfect syntax,” Andy said. “Just get the Given-When-Then down. The rest can be word-smithed later.”

He also shared that properly written Gherkin scenarios can reveal the true scope and cost of building a feature. Rather than estimating in planning poker, teams could just write out their scenarios and use the number of them as a proxy for complexity. It’s a practical insight that could save teams time—and arguments.

What’s Next for Andy?

Though he’s no longer doing 60+ speaking gigs a year, Andy is still active on the conference circuit. He’s heading to PyTexas in April, where he’ll give workshops on Playwright, PyTest, and behavior-oriented testing. He’ll also be speaking at DevOpsDays Baltimore in May, bringing his testing philosophy to broader technical audiences.

Final Thoughts

This conversation between Mike and Andy is a rich and honest look at the state of BDD today. It’s not dead, but it’s not thriving either—not because the principles failed, but because the industry lost sight of what BDD was trying to solve: the human problem of collaboration.