Many teams chase high coverage numbers, assuming 90% or 100% will automatically guarantee quality. But code coverage isn’t really about hitting a magic percentage—it’s about reducing risk in the areas that matter most. Coverage highlights which parts of the application are executed during testing and which critical paths are being ignored.

Looking at code coverage through the lens of risk changes the whole conversation. A low-level helper class sitting at 40% might be fine, while a payment processor or authentication module at the same percentage represents a serious vulnerability. Likewise, coverage that includes only the “happy paths” can give a false sense of safety if branches and edge cases remain untested.

When used thoughtfully, code coverage helps teams allocate testing effort where it has the highest impact: core logic, modules touched frequently by changes, and areas with a history of bugs. Instead of treating coverage as a scoreboard, it becomes a strategic tool that drives smarter testing decisions and supports long-term reliability.