Global App Testing vs ScienceSoft
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | Global App Testing | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | London, the UK | McKinney, the USA |
| Delivery locations | the UK, Romania | the USA, Mexico, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE |
| Team size | 51-200 people | 501-1000 people |
| Founded | 2013 | 1989 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Manual testing, Usability testing, Accessibility testing, Payment flow testing, Localization testing, AI system testing | Manual testing, Compatibility testing, Localization testing, Performance testing, Usability testing, Accessibility testing, Security testing, Compliance testing, Penetration testing, API testing, Mobile app testing, ERP testing, Data and ETL testing, Blockchain testing, Test automation |
| Industries | Telecom, Games, Fintech, Ecommerce, Media, Travel | SaaS, Healthcare, Medical devices, Insurance, Fintech, Banking, Real estate, Ecommerce, Manufacturing, Logistics, Energy and utilities, Travel |
| Frameworkspublished by one of the two | Not published | Selenium, Appium, REST Assured, Apache JMeter, SoapUI, Postman |
| Engagement models | Crowdtesting, Project work, Continuous testing program | Managed testing service |
| Client stages | Enterprises, Scaleups | Startups, Enterprises |
| Certificates | ISO/IEC 27001register 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 |
|
| Minimum project | $10,000globalapptesting.com | $5,000clutch.co |
| Onboarding | Not published | Not published |
| Crowd tester poolpublished by one of the two | 145,035globalapptesting.com | Not published |
| Device lab | Not published | Not published |
Who each one fits
Global App Testing fits a buyer whose scope sits inside customer-facing product quality: how a checkout behaves for a real person on an actual device. That work runs through a crowd rather than a fixed bench, suited to a buyer chasing issues a lab environment does not reproduce.
ScienceSoft fits a buyer whose scope reaches further into the stack, pairing automated regression with offensive security work carried out by an assigned team that stays with the engagement across releases. A buyer who starts with customer-facing checks and later needs that deeper work stays inside the same vendor relationship rather than bringing in a specialist.
Data processing paperwork goes unrecorded on either profile, and the omission does not weigh the same on each side. Work carried out by a crowd puts a product in front of people the vendor does not employ, so a buyer under EU or healthcare rules needs to know how those people are bound before a build reaches them. Ask each side who signs that agreement and who it binds below the signature, then hold the answer against the delivery locations published on the profile: an undertaking means what the governing jurisdiction lets it mean.
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.
Global App Testing
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 79% for Global App Testing and 86% for ScienceSoft. 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, 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 Global App Testing profile and the ScienceSoft profile.
Questions
- How many industries appear on ScienceSoft's published industry list compared with Global App Testing's?
- ScienceSoft's profile lists 12 industries, checked 3 September 2026. Global App Testing's profile lists 6 industries, checked 2 September 2026. Only fintech, ecommerce, and travel appear on both lists, so a buyer outside those three sectors finds industry experience published by only one of the two companies. A buyer in a sector missing from a given list should ask that vendor directly for a comparable project reference before assuming no experience exists.
- How do the published client stages for Global App Testing and ScienceSoft differ?
- Global App Testing's profile names 2 client stages, enterprise and scaleup, checked 2 September 2026. ScienceSoft's profile names 2 client stages, startup and enterprise, checked 3 September 2026. Enterprise is the only stage named on both profiles. Scaleup appears only on Global App Testing's list. Startup appears only on ScienceSoft's list. A buyer at the stage missing from a given profile is not automatically excluded, since a client stage tag records what a past engagement is confirmed to include, not a hard eligibility rule.
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.