Which test automation frameworks does QA Madness name, and what does Berezha Security Group show for the same field?

QA Madness names eight automation and performance tools, including Cypress, Playwright, Selenium and Appium, drawn from its own services pages and checked 2 September 2026. Berezha Security Group's frameworks field carries no entries in the catalog. A tool-specific automation requirement can be checked against QA Madness's list before a call. The same check on Berezha Security Group has no published list to start from, since the field is empty rather than answered with none.

Does QA Madness publish the engagement models it works under, and does Berezha Security Group publish anything similar?

QA Madness's engagement models field lists project work, dedicated team and staff augmentation, sourced from its own site and checked 2 September 2026. Berezha Security Group has no engagement model recorded in the catalog for any arrangement. A buyer who wants the contract structured a particular way, say as a dedicated team rather than a fixed-scope assessment, can confirm that QA Madness already offers it before the call. Berezha Security Group's engagement model has to be established from scratch in conversation, since no default is on file.

Berezha Security Group vs QA Madness

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

Berezha Security Group meets none that QA Madness does not; QA Madness meets the conditions for Embedded team model and Automation first and Security focus. The catalog has Frameworks, Engagement models, Client stages only for QA Madness. Neither publishes Certificates, Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool, Device lab, so the table cannot answer those.

Field by field

Berezha Security Group and QA Madness compared on the fields published for every company in this catalog
Field	Berezha Security Group	QA Madness
Headquarters	Kyiv, Ukraine	Warsaw, Poland
Delivery locations	Ukraine, Poland	Poland
Team size	11-50 people	51-200 people
Founded	2014	2013
Ownership	Independent	Independent
Services	Penetration testing, Security testing, Secure code review, Red teaming	Manual testing, Test automation, Accessibility testing, AI system testing, Performance testing, Security testing, Penetration testing, Mobile app testing, API testing, QA consulting, Localization testing, Acceptance testing, Compatibility testing
Industries	Fintech, Banking, Ecommerce, Healthcare, Telecom, Games, SaaS	SaaS, Ecommerce, Fintech, Healthcare, Games, Logistics, Education
Frameworkspublished by one of the two	Not published	Cypress, Playwright, Selenium, Appium, Robot Framework, WebdriverIO, k6, Apache JMeter
Engagement modelspublished by one of the two	Not published	Project work, Dedicated team, Staff augmentation
Client stagespublished by one of the two	Not published	Startups, Enterprises
Certificates	No certificate confirmed by a register entry	No certificate confirmed by a register entry
Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA	Not confirmed / Not confirmed	Not confirmed / Not confirmed
Published rates	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co
Minimum project	$5,000clutch.co	$1,000clutch.co
Onboarding	Not published	Not published
Crowd tester pool	Not published	Not published
Device lab	Not published	Not published

Who each one fits

Berezha Security Group fits a buyer whose scope is a security assessment and nothing around it. QA Madness fits a buyer who wants the whole release tested rather than a narrow slice of it, across a wider mix of industries. A team with security already covered and the rest of a release still to test gravitates to the broader practice. A team whose need is an offensive-security engagement on its own gravitates to the security specialist instead.

Where a vendor names its contract structures in advance, a buyer can size the commitment before anyone picks up the phone; where that field stays open, the question survives to the call itself. The same holds for the tooling behind automated work. So a buyer expecting a security engagement to grow past an initial assessment should raise contract structure and tooling on the first call, and ask specifically what changes if scope widens after the first report lands. Check whatever comes back against what each vendor eventually publishes: an arrangement described on a call and an arrangement on record are not the same thing, and only the second survives a change of account manager.

A tag is attached when the company's published fields meet its condition, never by judgement. Both lists come from the same closed vocabulary, so a tag missing from one side means the condition was not met, not that nobody looked.

Berezha Security Group

Berezha Security Group meets no applicability condition in this catalog. That is a statement about what its published fields show, not about the company.

QA Madness

Both meet the conditions for Nearshore for the EU, so those conditions do not separate them.

Where the data runs out

Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 57% for Berezha Security Group and 86% for QA Madness. A field is counted as filled when a source confirms it, so a gap means nobody published it.

Neither company has a value recorded for these fields: Certificates, Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool, Device lab. The table shows those rows empty rather than estimating them.

Field definitions and the completeness checklist are on the methodology page. The sources behind each field are listed on the Berezha Security Group profile and the QA Madness profile.

Questions

Which test automation frameworks does QA Madness name, and what does Berezha Security Group show for the same field?: QA Madness names eight automation and performance tools, including Cypress, Playwright, Selenium and Appium, drawn from its own services pages and checked 2 September 2026. Berezha Security Group's frameworks field carries no entries in the catalog. A tool-specific automation requirement can be checked against QA Madness's list before a call. The same check on Berezha Security Group has no published list to start from, since the field is empty rather than answered with none.
Does QA Madness publish the engagement models it works under, and does Berezha Security Group publish anything similar?: QA Madness's engagement models field lists project work, dedicated team and staff augmentation, sourced from its own site and checked 2 September 2026. Berezha Security Group has no engagement model recorded in the catalog for any arrangement. A buyer who wants the contract structured a particular way, say as a dedicated team rather than a fixed-scope assessment, can confirm that QA Madness already offers it before the call. Berezha Security Group's engagement model has to be established from scratch in conversation, since no default is on file.

Published by QA RatingUpdated on September 6, 2026

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.