A buyer needs a security testing vendor whose accreditation is confirmed by an outside registry entry, something to cite alongside a statement of work. Does either firm have one recorded with a source?

BreachLock's profile lists CREST accreditation, verified through the CREST marketplace entry for Breachlock Ltd, checked 2 September 2026. TestFort's profile carries no certificate in that field, so the catalog records it as unpublished rather than as evidence of an unaccredited practice.

A buyer wants a starting hourly figure before requesting a formal quote, to see whether a vendor sits inside budget before a call is booked. Which of the two publishes one?

TestFort publishes a blended hourly rate of $25 to $49, sourced from its Clutch profile checked 3 September 2026. BreachLock's profile has no rate field filled in, so a number for that firm comes only from asking directly.

BreachLock vs TestFort

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

BreachLock meets none that TestFort does not; TestFort meets the conditions for Embedded team model and Performance engineering. The catalog has Certificates only for BreachLock, and Frameworks, Client stages, Published rates, Minimum project only for TestFort. Neither publishes Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool, Device lab, so the table cannot answer those.

Field by field

BreachLock and TestFort compared on the fields published for every company in this catalog
Field	BreachLock	TestFort
Headquarters	New York, the USA	London, the UK
Delivery locations	the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, India	the UK, the USA, Ukraine
Team size	51-200 people	51-200 people
Founded	2019	2001
Ownership	Independent	Subsidiary
Services	Penetration testing, Red teaming, Secure code review, Attack surface management	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	Banking, Manufacturing, Healthcare, Telecom, Ecommerce	Games, Healthcare, Ecommerce, Banking, Fintech, Media, Insurance, Logistics
Frameworkspublished by one of the two	Not published	SAP, Selenium, Appium
Engagement models	Managed testing service, On-demand testing, Continuous testing program	Dedicated team, Managed testing service
Client stagespublished by one of the two	Not published	Startups
Certificates	CRESTregister entry	No certificate confirmed by a register entry
Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA	Not confirmed / Not confirmed	Not confirmed / Not confirmed
Published ratespublished by one of the two	Not published	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co
Minimum projectpublished by one of the two	Not published	$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

BreachLock sells adversarial work: an outside team probing a system the way an attacker would. TestFort sells the disciplines a product passes through on its way to release, and security work sits among them rather than above them. The split says nothing about which practice is stronger. It says which of them a buyer is shopping for at all, a mandate to have a running system attacked or a mandate to have a product tested before it ships, and a buyer who has not settled that question is comparing answers to different briefs.

Whichever side that lands on, the same question stays open on either profile: whether the vendor will sign a business associate agreement or a GDPR data processing agreement. Testing reads production-shaped data on most engagements, so a buyer under healthcare or EU data rules starts that negotiation from scratch here, whoever wins the work. Ask on the first call what agreements of that kind each side has signed before, and how long the legal review ran. Weigh the answer against the delivery locations each vendor publishes, since where the work is performed decides which regime governs it.

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.

BreachLock

BreachLock 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 64% for BreachLock 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: 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 BreachLock profile and the TestFort profile.

Questions

A buyer needs a security testing vendor whose accreditation is confirmed by an outside registry entry, something to cite alongside a statement of work. Does either firm have one recorded with a source?: BreachLock's profile lists CREST accreditation, verified through the CREST marketplace entry for Breachlock Ltd, checked 2 September 2026. TestFort's profile carries no certificate in that field, so the catalog records it as unpublished rather than as evidence of an unaccredited practice.
A buyer wants a starting hourly figure before requesting a formal quote, to see whether a vendor sits inside budget before a call is booked. Which of the two publishes one?: TestFort publishes a blended hourly rate of $25 to $49, sourced from its Clutch profile checked 3 September 2026. BreachLock's profile has no rate field filled in, so a number for that firm comes only from asking directly.

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.