NetSPI vs QAwerk
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | NetSPI | QAwerk |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Minneapolis, the USA | Kyiv, Ukraine |
| Delivery locations | the USA, Canada, the UK, India | Ukraine |
| Team size | 501-1000 people | 51-200 people |
| Founded | 2001 | 2015 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Penetration testing, Security testing, Red teaming, Secure code review, Attack surface management | Mobile app testing, Penetration testing, AR/VR testing, Accessibility testing, Manual testing, Blockchain testing, Localization testing, Compliance testing, AI system testing, Compatibility testing, Test automation, API testing, Usability testing, Security testing, Acceptance testing, Performance testing |
| Industries | Banking, Healthcare, Insurance | Games, Automotive, SaaS, Fintech, Ecommerce, Education, Healthcare |
| Frameworkspublished by one of the two | Not published | Selenium, Robot Framework, Appium, TestNG, JUnit |
| Engagement models | Managed testing service, Continuous testing program | Project work, Dedicated team |
| 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 |
|
| 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
NetSPI comes at a system from the outside for a bounded engagement and leaves a report behind. QAwerk puts people inside a release process and keeps them there across cycles. A buyer holding these on a shortlist is usually deciding whether security work is an event or a habit, and that choice sets everything downstream, including how long anyone from the vendor holds access to production-shaped data.
No published record on either profile says whether the vendor will sign a business associate agreement or a GDPR data processing agreement, and the exposure such a clause covers differs across this pair. A bounded assessment is a window: a named team, a fixed period, access that can be withdrawn on a date already in the contract. A standing arrangement is not shaped that way, because the people on the account change while the access does not, and an agreement has to bind whoever is assigned next quarter as much as whoever is assigned now. Ask each side who signs such an agreement, whether it names individuals or the company, and how it carries over when assigned staff rotate. The regulatory readiness field on the profile is where a published position would appear.
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.
Both meet the conditions for Security focus, so those conditions do not separate them.
Where the data runs out
Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 71% for NetSPI and 86% for QAwerk. 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 NetSPI profile and the QAwerk profile.
Questions
- How many years apart are NetSPI's and QAwerk's founding dates, according to their published profiles?
- NetSPI's published profile states a founding year of 2001, checked 2 September 2026. QAwerk's published profile states a founding year of 2015, checked 2 September 2026. The two published dates sit fourteen years apart. No conflicting listing appears in the sources checked for either figure in this comparison.
- Which of the two companies' published profiles names a client stage it works with?
- QAwerk's published profile names startup as a client stage, checked 2 September 2026. NetSPI's published profile does not name any client stage, checked 2 September 2026. A team at seed stage can match its plans against QAwerk's published tag. The same team finds no equivalent stage tag on NetSPI's profile to check before reaching out.
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.