Digivante vs UNGUESS
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | Digivante | UNGUESS |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Cheltenham, the UK | Milan, Italy |
| Delivery locations | the UK | Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK |
| Team size | 11-50 people | 51-200 people |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Acceptance testing, Accessibility testing, Manual testing, Usability testing, Payment flow testing, Compatibility testing, Compliance testing | Manual testing, Compatibility testing, Test automation, Payment flow testing, Usability testing, Localization testing, Red teaming, Penetration testing, Accessibility testing |
| Industries | Ecommerce, Fintech, Automotive, Healthcare, Media, Games, SaaS, Travel | Games, Ecommerce, Banking, Insurance, Travel, Energy and utilities, Healthcare, Media, Automotive |
| Frameworks | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Crowdtesting, Managed testing service | Crowdtesting |
| Client stages | Not published | Not published |
| Certificates | No certificate confirmed by a register entry | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entry |
| Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA | Not confirmed / Not confirmed | Not confirmed / Yes |
| Published rates | Not published | Not published |
| Minimum project | Not published | Not published |
| Onboarding | Not published | Not published |
| Crowd tester pool | 55,000digivante.com | 60,000softwaretestinghelp.com |
| Device lab | Not published | Not published |
Who each one fits
Digivante's published practice stays close to what a customer meets while using a product, and a buyer who needs exactly that work gets a vendor pointed at it and nothing beyond. UNGUESS publishes a practice that covers the same ground and reaches further out from it, which suits a buyer who expects the relationship to widen after the first project rather than end with it. The choice here is less about the work in hand, where the profiles land close together, than about whether a further procurement is wanted later.
The stage of company each firm usually works with goes unpublished on either profile, and for testing run by a distributed group that gap bites harder than it looks: a product already carrying real traffic and a product still waiting for its first users need different things from the people testing it. Ask each side to describe its most recent engagement with a product at the stage yours is at, and to say how the testing group was assembled for it. Weigh the answer against the industries each publishes, since a claim that lands outside the sectors on that list is worth another question.
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.
Digivante
Digivante meets no applicability condition in this catalog. That is a statement about what its published fields show, not about the company.
UNGUESS
Both meet the conditions for Crowdtesting at scale, so those conditions do not separate them.
Where the data runs out
Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 57% for Digivante and 79% for UNGUESS. 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: Frameworks, Client stages, Published rates, Minimum project, Onboarding, 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 Digivante profile and the UNGUESS profile.
Questions
- How large is the published crowdtesting pool at Digivante compared with UNGUESS?
- Digivante's own blog puts its crowdtesting community at 55,000 testers, checked 2 September 2026. UNGUESS's published pool reaches 60,000 testers, according to a SoftwareTestingHelp roundup checked 3 September 2026. The Digivante figure comes from the company's own account of its community. The UNGUESS figure comes from an independent industry listing, so the two counts are not sourced the same way. A count on its own does not show how many of those testers are actually available for a given device, region, or release window.
- How many engagement models does each of Digivante and UNGUESS publish?
- Digivante's profile lists two engagement models, crowdtesting and managed testing service, checked 2 September 2026. UNGUESS's profile lists one engagement model, crowdtesting, checked 3 September 2026. The two lists overlap only on crowdtesting, so a fully vendor-run engagement with agreed service levels appears as a published option on Digivante's profile and not on UNGUESS's. A buyer who wants that structure from UNGUESS should ask directly whether it takes on that kind of work despite the published list, then check the answer against the engagement models field on UNGUESS's own profile.
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.