A founder whose product is still at an early stage wants to know which of the two vendors names startups as a client stage it works with. What does the published record show?

TestFort's published client stages list includes startup, sourced to its own homepage, checked 3 September 2026. Berezha Security Group's profile carries no client stage field at all, so the catalog records that as unpublished rather than as evidence the firm turns early-stage companies away.

A buyer wants to know whether either firm has enough people on staff to run more than one engagement in parallel. What headcount band does each publish?

Berezha Security Group's published team size is 11 to 50 people, sourced to its Clutch profile checked 3 September 2026. TestFort's published team size is 51 to 200 people, sourced to its own Clutch profile, also checked 3 September 2026.

Berezha Security Group vs TestFort

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

Berezha Security Group meets none that TestFort does not; TestFort meets the conditions for Embedded team model and Performance engineering. The catalog has Frameworks, Engagement models, Client stages only for TestFort. 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 TestFort compared on the fields published for every company in this catalog
Field	Berezha Security Group	TestFort
Headquarters	Kyiv, Ukraine	London, the UK
Delivery locations	Ukraine, Poland	the UK, the USA, Ukraine
Team size	11-50 people	51-200 people
Founded	2014	2001
Ownership	Independent	Subsidiary
Services	Penetration testing, Security testing, Secure code review, Red teaming	Manual testing, Test automation, AI system testing, QA consulting, Performance testing, Usability testing, API testing, Acceptance testing, Localization testing, Accessibility testing, Mobile app testing, IoT and device testing, ERP testing
Industries	Fintech, Banking, Ecommerce, Healthcare, Telecom, Games, SaaS	Games, Healthcare, Ecommerce, Banking, Fintech, Media, Insurance, Logistics
Frameworkspublished by one of the two	Not published	SAP, Selenium, Appium
Engagement modelspublished by one of the two	Not published	Dedicated team, Managed testing service
Client stagespublished by one of the two	Not published	Startups
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	$10,000clutch.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's published scope sits entirely inside offensive security work, without a broader general quality-assurance practice attached to it. TestFort's published scope reaches across general software quality assurance, with security work forming a narrower slice of a much wider spread. A buyer whose mandate is a security assessment fits the narrower, security-only profile; a buyer building out a broader QA practice, where security work sits alongside other testing disciplines, fits the wider one.

Onboarding process is a field the table leaves blank for each company, so a prospective client cannot compare how either vendor ramps up a new engagement from the published record alone. That gap matters most to a buyer who needs a defined ramp-up timeline written into a statement of work before signing, rather than a general assurance that onboarding goes smoothly. The direct question for a first call is what the early weeks of an engagement look like: who gets assigned, and when the first deliverable lands. The published services list is the place to check that answer against scope once a proposal comes back, since it is the field each vendor populates in full.

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.

TestFort

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 TestFort. 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 TestFort profile.

Questions

A founder whose product is still at an early stage wants to know which of the two vendors names startups as a client stage it works with. What does the published record show?: TestFort's published client stages list includes startup, sourced to its own homepage, checked 3 September 2026. Berezha Security Group's profile carries no client stage field at all, so the catalog records that as unpublished rather than as evidence the firm turns early-stage companies away.
A buyer wants to know whether either firm has enough people on staff to run more than one engagement in parallel. What headcount band does each publish?: Berezha Security Group's published team size is 11 to 50 people, sourced to its Clutch profile checked 3 September 2026. TestFort's published team size is 51 to 200 people, sourced to its own Clutch profile, also checked 3 September 2026.

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.