NetSPI vs Software Secured
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | NetSPI | Software Secured |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Minneapolis, the USA | Ottawa, Canada |
| Delivery locations | the USA, Canada, the UK, India | Canada |
| Team size | 501-1000 people | 11-50 people |
| Founded | 2001 | 2010 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Penetration testing, Security testing, Red teaming, Secure code review, Attack surface management | Penetration testing, Secure code review, Red teaming |
| Industries | Banking, Healthcare, Insurance | Healthcare, Banking, SaaS |
| Frameworks | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Managed testing service, Continuous testing program | Managed testing service |
| Client stagespublished by one of the two | Not published | Scaleups |
| Certificates | CRESTregister entry | No certificate confirmed by a register entry |
| Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA | Not confirmed / Not confirmed | Not confirmed / Not confirmed |
| Published rates | Not published | Not published |
| Minimum projectpublished by one of the two | Not published | $5,000clutch.co |
| Onboarding | Not published | Not published |
| Crowd tester pool | Not published | Not published |
| Device lab | Not published | Not published |
Who each one fits
Software Secured's published case work sits with SaaS companies building a security practice they cannot yet staff, where the vendor stands in for a function the buyer does not have. NetSPI's sits with organisations that already run that function and are buying depth for it, testing an estate somebody inside already owns. The split here is about the buyer more than the work: whether security testing arrives as a substitute for missing capability or as an addition to capability that exists.
Price is where that split bites, and it is what this pair leaves a buyer to discover on a call. A company with no security line item has nothing to weigh a quote against and no budget already shaped to absorb it, so the figure lands as a choice against other spending rather than as a line to approve. A buyer that already funds the function reads the same figure as a variance against what it spends now. Ask each company for a not-to-exceed figure or a fixed price band before scoping begins, and put whichever number comes back in writing. Weigh it later against whatever the published rate field eventually carries.
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.
NetSPI
Software Secured
Software Secured meets no applicability condition in this catalog. That is a statement about what its published fields show, not about the company.
Both meet the conditions for Nearshore for the USA, 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 71% for Software Secured. 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, Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Published rates, 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 Software Secured profile.
Questions
- Does either company's published profile offer a continuing testing program?
- NetSPI's published profile lists Continuous testing program among its engagement models, checked 2 September 2026. Software Secured's published profile lists Managed testing service as its engagement model, checked 3 September 2026. NetSPI's published profile lists Managed testing service as well, checked 2 September 2026. A buyer who needs testing to run on a standing cycle instead of restarting with every new scope finds that shape named on NetSPI's profile.
- Does either company's published profile connect it to a parent firm instead of standing on its own?
- NetSPI's published profile lists its ownership type as independent, checked 2 September 2026. Software Secured's published profile lists the same ownership type, independent, checked 3 September 2026. Neither entry names a parent firm, a holding company, or a private-equity owner behind either business. That match holds only as of the dates above and would not survive an acquisition on either side. A buyer whose procurement policy screens out vendors tied to a parent group can treat this field as a starting point, then verify it directly with whichever company reaches a contract stage.
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.