Human Pen testers manually conduct their tests and this may result in a wait of several days or even weeks depending on the scope of the pen test, before a report of the detailed vulnerabilities within the system can be generated. This is a major issue as the reports may not be updated and accurate, having become outdated as the system environment may have changed or updated since the report was first generated. New vulnerabilities not present during the test could have emerged. Automated Penetration testing on the other hand, eliminates these concerns. Reports generated by automated tools require just a fraction of the time, some reports being generated instantly. Given the short amount of time relative to manual testing to generate a report, automated pen tests can also be repeated multiple times. This allows frequent detection of new vulnerabilities, which can be remediated quickly. Over are the days of waiting for a long time for a report which may be obsolete. 

Secondly, Automated pen testing tools are also typically more affordable than manual pen-testing. Typically, the pen-tester would be given a certain access point (known as an entry point) before he attempts to gain access to a system during a penetration test. A pen-testing tool on the other hand, can make use of differing entry points, discovering a greater number of exploits, thus creating a wider range of case studies and scenarios. While this is also possible with manual pen testing, the cost may be prohibitively expensive as a significantly longer time and greater amount of effort is required to conduct a test from each single point. This is both not practical and financially viable.  

Furthermore, automated pen test tools also have the ability to collect large portions of data from a system, even entire subnets (sections), which is very time consuming for a human pentester, thus helping to save time. As mentioned earlier, this allows for testing of huge infrastructures with many endpoints, while doing so with human pentersters would be impractical – both financially and time consuming. Instead, with automated pentesting tools, it would be as simple as inputting an IP range, waiting for the final results to be generated before diving into the glaring findings.