Packetlabs vs ScienceSoft
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | Packetlabs | ScienceSoft |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Toronto, Canada | McKinney, the USA |
| Delivery locations | Canada, the USA, Australia | the USA, Mexico, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE |
| Team size | 51-200 people | 501-1000 people |
| Founded | 2011 | 1989 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Penetration testing, Red teaming | 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 | Education, Banking, Healthcare, Games, Manufacturing, Ecommerce, SaaS, Energy and utilities | 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 | Continuous testing program | Managed testing service |
| Client stagespublished by one of the two | Not published | Startups, Enterprises |
| 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 project | $10,000clutch.co | $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
Packetlabs sells only offensive engagements, run and closed as a deliverable by specialists who do nothing else. ScienceSoft's catalog runs far wider, automation running through much of it, and its offensive work sits as a line inside that broader, tooling-heavy operation. A buyer lands on this pair deciding whether an offensive check should come from a shop built around nothing but that work, or from a wider testing operation that already runs on automated tooling and folds security work into the same practice.
What stays open on Packetlabs's page is what actually runs an engagement. Naming no framework leaves a buyer unable to tell whether a report comes from scanning known patterns and misconfigurations or from a person working a target by hand toward a chained exploit, and each produces a different mix of findings at a different price. Against a full-service vendor whose offensive work sits as a service among many automated ones, that gap weighs more: the buyer needs to know what they are paying for. Ask on the first call how much of an engagement is scripted and how much is worked by hand. Check the answer later against whatever the frameworks field eventually names.
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.
Packetlabs
Packetlabs 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 64% for Packetlabs 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, 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 Packetlabs profile and the ScienceSoft profile.
Questions
- By how many years does ScienceSoft's founding predate Packetlabs's, based on each company's published profile?
- ScienceSoft's published profile states a founding year of 1989, checked 3 September 2026. Packetlabs's published profile states a founding year of 2011, checked 2 September 2026. Twenty-two years separate the two dates as each company records them. A founding year marks incorporation, not the date either company added its current security or testing services.
- Which industries appear on both Packetlabs's and ScienceSoft's published profiles?
- Banking, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Ecommerce, SaaS and Energy and utilities appear on both Packetlabs's and ScienceSoft's published industry lists, checked 3 September 2026. Packetlabs's published profile names eight industries in total, including Education and Games, which do not appear on ScienceSoft's list, checked 2 September 2026. ScienceSoft's published profile names twelve industries in total, including Medical devices, Insurance, Fintech, Real estate, Logistics and Travel, which do not appear on Packetlabs's list, checked 3 September 2026.
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.