Our automation runs on Selenium and Appium. Which alternatives still publish both of those by name?

Six of the eight candidates name both Selenium and Appium among their published frameworks, the same two frameworks ScienceSoft names among its own. One additional candidate names Appium together with a load-testing tool but leaves Selenium off its list. A published list records that a company has named a tool, and it settles nothing about how much of that company's work runs on it. Tools such as Playwright, WebdriverIO and TestComplete appear only among candidates with longer published framework lists.

Among the candidates' published case studies, which industries are covered, and does any name a measured outcome specifically in healthcare?

Healthcare carries more published case evidence than any other sector here, and the reported outcomes differ in kind. Four of the eight candidates publish at least one case study set in healthcare. One case describes test coverage rising from 50 percent to 90 percent on a glucose-monitoring device, another reports close to 100 critical defects found while testing a mental-health application, and a third reports a 40 percent increase in completed diagnostic tests alongside a 75 percent cut in manual testing effort. A fourth names only that it produced more than 2,400 test cases for a healthcare AI project, with no before-and-after figure attached to that count.

Do any of the published case studies stop short of naming a measured result, describing only the scope of the work instead?

One published case study states directly that no metric was measured for the engagement it describes, an account of continuous testing work built for an e-commerce platform. Every other case study among the eight candidates attaches at least one number to the work described, either a percentage change or a count tied directly to the engagement. Both kinds of account, the one with a number and the one without, come from the same candidate's own set of published cases.

ScienceSoft alternatives

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

ScienceSoft declares 15 services in this catalog, among them Manual testing, Compatibility testing, Localization testing. ScienceSoft names 12 industries, among them SaaS, Healthcare, Medical devices. Across the review platforms this catalog reads, ScienceSoft has 85 verified reviews, and that count is what puts it among the companies people search alternatives for.

8 companies compared against ScienceSoft.

Where these companies differ from ScienceSoft

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 ScienceSoft.

Delivery geography: 6 of the 8 candidates deliver from at least one country ScienceSoft does not list.
Certifications: 2 of the 8 candidates hold a confirmed certification that ScienceSoft does not.
Published rates: 6 of the 8 candidates publish an hourly rate, and ScienceSoft publishes one too, so the two can be read side by side.
Applicability conditions the subject does not meet: Candidates on this page meet conditions ScienceSoft does not, among them Embedded team model, Performance engineering, Device lab coverage.
Published case studies: 8 of the 8 candidates publish at least one case study with a named metric, and ScienceSoft publishes 2.

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.

DeviQA
Automation first Security focus Nearshore for the EU
DeviQA meets 3 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Security focus, declares 10 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Test automation and Manual testing, names Healthcare and Fintech among its industries, and carries 44 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
QA Madness
Automation first Security focus Nearshore for the EU
QA Madness meets 3 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Security focus, declares 10 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Manual testing and Test automation, names SaaS and Ecommerce among its industries, and carries 44 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
a1qa
Automation first Nearshore for the EU Nearshore for the USA
a1qa meets 3 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Nearshore for the EU, declares 9 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Manual testing and Test automation, names Banking and Travel among its industries, and carries 20 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
QAwerk
Automation first Security focus Nearshore for the EU
QAwerk meets 3 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Security focus, declares 13 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Mobile app testing and Penetration testing, names SaaS and Fintech among its industries, and carries 13 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
BetterQA
Automation first Security focus Nearshore for the EU
BetterQA meets 3 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Security focus, declares 8 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Manual testing and Security testing, names Healthcare and Medical devices among its industries, and carries no verified reviews on the platforms this catalog reads.
Edgescan
Security focus Nearshore for the EU
Edgescan meets 2 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Security focus and Nearshore for the EU, declares 2 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Penetration testing and Security testing, names Banking and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 53 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
QASource
Automation first Nearshore for the USA
QASource meets 2 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Nearshore for the USA, declares 7 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them API testing and Blockchain testing, names SaaS and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 29 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.
Abstracta
Automation first Nearshore for the USA
Abstracta meets 2 of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, among them Automation first and Nearshore for the USA, declares 6 of the services ScienceSoft declares, among them Manual testing and Test automation, names Banking and Healthcare among its industries, and carries 24 verified reviews against 85 for ScienceSoft.

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.

ScienceSoft 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
ScienceSoftThe company this page compares against	the USA, Mexico, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE	Blended $50-99/hclutch.co	501-1000 people	None confirmed	2	85
DeviQA	Poland	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	201-500 people	None confirmed	5	44
QA Madness	Poland	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	51-200 people	None confirmed	2	44
a1qa	the USA, the UK, Poland, Georgia, Bangladesh, Mexico	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	1000 or more people	None confirmed	3	20
QAwerk	Ukraine	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	51-200 people	None confirmed	3	13
BetterQA	Romania	Not published	11-50 people	ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entryISO 13485register entry	4	0
Edgescan	Ireland, the USA	Not published	51-200 people	ISO/IEC 27001register entryCRESTregister entry	1	53
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

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

Where ScienceSoft's declared scope runs wide, and where it matches the field

ScienceSoft declares 15 services and 12 industries, a combination no other company on this page repeats in full: QAwerk also declares 15 services, and DeviQA also declares 12 industries, but no candidate matches both counts at once. Breadth of declaration is a statement about what a company says it sells. It says nothing about delivery depth.

Framework depth reads differently from service breadth. ScienceSoft names six frameworks. Four candidates name more: a1qa names 13, BetterQA names 11, and QA Madness and QASource name eight each. Three candidates name fewer, from five down to two, and one candidate names none at all. Seven of the eight candidates name at least one framework.

Where the entry point differs: minimum project size and how work is structured

ScienceSoft publishes a minimum project size of 5,000 US dollars. One candidate publishes the same floor, and one publishes a lower floor of 1,000 dollars, the smallest figure on this page. Three candidates publish a higher floor, two of them at 10,000 dollars and one at 25,000 dollars, the largest figure here. Three of the eight candidates publish no minimum project size at all, so no comparison with ScienceSoft's floor is possible for them from this catalog.

ScienceSoft publishes one engagement model, managed testing service. Six of the eight candidates publish at least one model of their own: one candidate publishes four models, two candidates publish three each, two candidates publish two each, and one candidate publishes a single model. Two of the eight publish no engagement model at all. A buyer comparing how work gets structured has more published options to weigh among the candidates than in ScienceSoft's own single-model field.

Client stage coverage and how complete these profiles are

ScienceSoft's published client stages are startup and enterprise. Six of the eight candidates publish at least one client stage: one candidate publishes three stages, two candidates publish the same two stages as ScienceSoft, two candidates publish one stage each, and one candidate publishes a different single stage. Two of the eight publish no client stage.

One regulatory field separates a single candidate from the rest of the page. One of the eight confirms a GDPR data processing agreement; ScienceSoft's own field for this carries no published entry, and so does the same field for the other seven candidates. Two fields carry no entry for any of the nine companies on this page: none publishes an onboarding time, and none publishes a crowd tester pool size. An empty cell in either field records that no source published a value, not that the service does not exist.

Which applicability conditions carry over from ScienceSoft

Five of the eight candidates meet three of the same applicability conditions as ScienceSoft, the highest overlap on this page. Four of those five share Automation first, Security focus and Nearshore for the EU. The fifth shares Automation first, Nearshore for the EU and Nearshore for the USA instead. The remaining three candidates each meet two of ScienceSoft's conditions: two share Automation first and Nearshore for the USA, and one shares Security focus and Nearshore for the EU. Shared conditions describe overlap in what a company's published fields qualify it for. They do not indicate that the underlying work is interchangeable.

Side by side with ScienceSoft

Questions

Our automation runs on Selenium and Appium. Which alternatives still publish both of those by name?: Six of the eight candidates name both Selenium and Appium among their published frameworks, the same two frameworks ScienceSoft names among its own. One additional candidate names Appium together with a load-testing tool but leaves Selenium off its list. A published list records that a company has named a tool, and it settles nothing about how much of that company's work runs on it. Tools such as Playwright, WebdriverIO and TestComplete appear only among candidates with longer published framework lists.
Among the candidates' published case studies, which industries are covered, and does any name a measured outcome specifically in healthcare?: Healthcare carries more published case evidence than any other sector here, and the reported outcomes differ in kind. Four of the eight candidates publish at least one case study set in healthcare. One case describes test coverage rising from 50 percent to 90 percent on a glucose-monitoring device, another reports close to 100 critical defects found while testing a mental-health application, and a third reports a 40 percent increase in completed diagnostic tests alongside a 75 percent cut in manual testing effort. A fourth names only that it produced more than 2,400 test cases for a healthcare AI project, with no before-and-after figure attached to that count.
Do any of the published case studies stop short of naming a measured result, describing only the scope of the work instead?: One published case study states directly that no metric was measured for the engagement it describes, an account of continuous testing work built for an e-commerce platform. Every other case study among the eight candidates attaches at least one number to the work described, either a percentage change or a count tied directly to the engagement. Both kinds of account, the one with a number and the one without, come from the same candidate's own set of published cases.

Published by QA RatingPublished on September 3, 2026Updated on September 3, 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.