We buy penetration testing and red teaming from one vendor. Can we keep both under one contract after moving?

Two of the eight alternatives publish both services. One alternative publishes penetration testing without red teaming. A different alternative publishes red teaming without penetration testing. The other four publish neither of the two, selling manual testing, test automation and performance testing instead. Both of the two that keep the pair also publish secure code review, which Packetlabs does not, and one of those two adds attack surface management on top of it. Keeping the pair and widening the security scope turn out to be the same decision here.

Our contract covers energy and utilities work. Which of the sectors we buy for are the hard ones to find again?

Energy and utilities appears on one industry list among the eight alternatives. Games appears on one list among the eight as well, and it is a different alternative. Manufacturing appears on two lists among the eight. Banking sits at the far end, published by all eight. Healthcare is published by seven of the eight. The eight sectors Packetlabs names split into a wide half that survives almost any move and a narrow half that comes down to a single candidate each.

Half the alternatives publish a list of testing tools and half publish none. Does that split mean anything?

The tool list tracks what kind of vendor a profile belongs to. Six alternatives publish a framework list, and every one of those six sells functional testing work such as manual testing or test automation. The two that publish no tool list are the same two that keep both offensive security services. An empty framework field records that no published list was found, and here it lines up exactly with a service list that contains no automation to build tooling around.

Packetlabs alternatives

QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.

Packetlabs declares 2 services in this catalog, among them Penetration testing, Red teaming. Packetlabs names 8 industries, among them Education, Banking, Healthcare. Across the review platforms this catalog reads, Packetlabs has 72 verified reviews, and that count is what puts it among the companies people search alternatives for. Certifications confirmed for Packetlabs: crest.

8 companies compared against Packetlabs.

Where these companies differ from Packetlabs

This catalog does not know why a reader is looking for a replacement, and it does not guess. The list below is the set of fields on which the companies on this page actually differ from Packetlabs.

Delivery geography: 6 of the 8 candidates deliver from at least one country Packetlabs does not list.
Published rates: 6 of the 8 candidates publish an hourly rate. Packetlabs publishes none, so this page cannot compare price.
Applicability conditions the subject does not meet: Candidates on this page meet conditions Packetlabs does not, among them Automation first, Embedded team model, Nearshore for the EU.
Published case studies: 7 of the 8 candidates publish at least one case study with a named metric, and Packetlabs publishes 0.

The companies

A company is listed here when it meets at least one of the same applicability conditions as the company at the top of the page. Those conditions are computed from published fields, so the list changes when the fields change and never because somebody paid for a place in it.

ScienceSoft
Nearshore for the USA
ScienceSoft meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, declares 1 of the services Packetlabs declares, among them Penetration testing, names SaaS and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 85 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
QASource
Nearshore for the USA
QASource meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, declares 1 of the services Packetlabs declares, among them Red teaming, names SaaS and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 29 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
Abstracta
Nearshore for the USA
Abstracta meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, names Banking and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 24 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
QAlified
Nearshore for the USA
QAlified meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, names Banking and Ecommerce among its industries, and carries 21 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
a1qa
Nearshore for the USA
a1qa meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, names Banking and Ecommerce among its industries, and carries 20 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
Software Secured
Nearshore for the USA
Software Secured meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, declares 2 of the services Packetlabs declares, among them Penetration testing and Red teaming, names Healthcare and Banking among its industries, and carries 20 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
ILoveMyQA
Nearshore for the USA
ILoveMyQA meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, names Ecommerce and Education among its industries, and carries 11 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.
NetSPI
Nearshore for the USA
NetSPI meets the same applicability condition as Packetlabs, Nearshore for the USA, declares 2 of the services Packetlabs declares, among them Penetration testing and Red teaming, names Banking and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 11 verified reviews against 72 for Packetlabs.

Field by field

The order is by the number of applicability conditions a company shares with the company at the top of the page, then by the number of verified reviews it has on external review platforms, then alphabetically by name. No position here is paid for and none of it is an editorial score.

Packetlabs and the 8 companies this catalog lists as alternatives, on the fields it publishes for every company.
Company	Delivery locations	Published rates	Team size	Certificates	Case studies	Reviews
PacketlabsThe company this page compares against	Canada, the USA, Australia	Not published	51-200 people	CRESTregister entry	Not published	72
ScienceSoft	the USA, Mexico, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE	Blended $50-99/hclutch.co	501-1000 people	None confirmed	2	85
QASource	the USA, India, Mexico	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	1000 or more people	None confirmed	1	29
Abstracta	the USA, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Canada, the UK	Blended $50-99/hclutch.co	51-200 people	None confirmed	4	24
QAlified	Uruguay, the USA	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	11-50 people	None confirmed	5	21
a1qa	the USA, the UK, Poland, Georgia, Bangladesh, Mexico	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	1000 or more people	None confirmed	3	20
Software Secured	Canada	Not published	11-50 people	None confirmed	2	20
ILoveMyQA	Canada, the USA	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	11-50 people	None confirmed	Not published	11
NetSPI	the USA, Canada, the UK, India	Not published	501-1000 people	CRESTregister entry	2	11

No company in this table has a value recorded for these fields: Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool, Device lab. Those cells are empty because no source recorded the value, and an empty cell is not a statement that the company lacks the property.

Specialization tags that Packetlabs's own field does not carry

Packetlabs's own applicability tag on this catalog is limited to Nearshore for the USA, met by keeping at least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America. All eight candidates meet that same condition. None of the five other tags that appear among the candidates is one Packetlabs itself carries.

Security focus requires security testing offered together with penetration testing or a verified ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, plus at least one published case study; ScienceSoft and NetSPI meet it. Automation first requires test automation offered as a service with a published case study reporting a coverage or regression metric; ScienceSoft, QASource, Abstracta, QAlified and a1qa meet it. Nearshore for the EU requires a delivery location in the EU, the EEA, or in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Moldova; ScienceSoft and a1qa meet it. Embedded team model requires the dedicated team engagement model plus a published case study; QASource and a1qa meet it. Performance engineering requires performance testing offered as a service with a published throughput or latency metric; QASource and Abstracta meet it.

Headquarters and founding years across the eight

Two of the eight candidates share Packetlabs's own headquarters country, Canada: Software Secured and ILoveMyQA. Five candidates are headquartered in the United States, and one, QAlified, in Uruguay. Founding years among the eight span from 1992, when QAlified was founded, to 2018, when ILoveMyQA was founded. Packetlabs itself was founded in 2011, a year inside that span but not shared exactly with any of the eight.

Engagement models and where the minimum project size lands

Six of the eight candidates publish at least one engagement model. NetSPI's published models include continuous testing, the same model Packetlabs itself lists. Abstracta and ILoveMyQA publish no engagement model at all.

Minimum project size, where published, ranges from 1,000 US dollars at ILoveMyQA to 25,000 US dollars at QASource. Packetlabs's own published floor is 10,000 US dollars, matched exactly by a1qa. Abstracta, QAlified and NetSPI publish no minimum project size.

Case study topics across the eight

Case study topics vary by focus area rather than repeat across the eight. One of ScienceSoft's published case studies describes penetration testing for a healthcare software vendor. One of NetSPI's published case studies describes benefits-navigation security work for Quantum Health. One of Software Secured's published case studies describes penetration testing for CompanyCam. One of Abstracta's published case studies describes banking response-time reduction for BBVA. One of QAlified's published case studies describes an open earth-science data system built for NASA VEDA. One of a1qa's published case studies describes AI-powered test automation for a retail client. One of QASource's published case studies describes a legacy CRM migration to Salesforce for a cancer-diagnostics provider.

Fields left blank across the composition

Certified certificates appear for one of the eight candidates. Published hourly rates appear for six of the eight, and client stages appear for five of the eight. An empty field records that no source published a value, not that the underlying service does not exist.

Side by side with Packetlabs

Questions

We buy penetration testing and red teaming from one vendor. Can we keep both under one contract after moving?: Two of the eight alternatives publish both services. One alternative publishes penetration testing without red teaming. A different alternative publishes red teaming without penetration testing. The other four publish neither of the two, selling manual testing, test automation and performance testing instead. Both of the two that keep the pair also publish secure code review, which Packetlabs does not, and one of those two adds attack surface management on top of it. Keeping the pair and widening the security scope turn out to be the same decision here.
Our contract covers energy and utilities work. Which of the sectors we buy for are the hard ones to find again?: Energy and utilities appears on one industry list among the eight alternatives. Games appears on one list among the eight as well, and it is a different alternative. Manufacturing appears on two lists among the eight. Banking sits at the far end, published by all eight. Healthcare is published by seven of the eight. The eight sectors Packetlabs names split into a wide half that survives almost any move and a narrow half that comes down to a single candidate each.
Half the alternatives publish a list of testing tools and half publish none. Does that split mean anything?: The tool list tracks what kind of vendor a profile belongs to. Six alternatives publish a framework list, and every one of those six sells functional testing work such as manual testing or test automation. The two that publish no tool list are the same two that keep both offensive security services. An empty framework field records that no published list was found, and here it lines up exactly with a service list that contains no automation to build tooling around.

Published by QA RatingPublished on September 4, 2026Updated on September 4, 2026

The rule behind this list and the basis of its order are on the methodology page. Every fact about a company comes from a listed source. A field without a source stays empty. A certificate counts as confirmed only when a registry, certificate or auditor report backs it; a certificate the company only claims about itself is published separately, under that label. Vendors can request a correction at hello@qa-rating.com. A correction is applied when it comes with a public source.