Testing modern PCBAs often requires a combination of power supplies, measurement instruments, switching hardware and custom interfaces. In many environments this results in a mix of standalone instruments or complete ATE systems that are expensive to buy, integrate and maintain.

When budgets are limited it becomes difficult to justify the level of test coverage that engineers know is necessary for reliable production. Instead, compromises appear: fewer functional checks, reduced automation or manual workarounds that slow down the process. These shortcuts may save budget initially but increase the risk of defects moving further into the manufacturing flow where they become significantly more costly to detect and fix.

Traditional test setups also lock teams into fixed hardware configurations that rarely match the actual needs of each project. The ongoing challenge is achieving solid, automated PCBA testing without relying on oversized, inflexible and high‑cost equipment.