PLUS QA vs SnoopGame
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | PLUS QA | SnoopGame |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Portland, the USA | Tallinn, Estonia |
| Delivery locations | the USA | Estonia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, North Macedonia, Mexico, the Philippines |
| Team size | 51-200 people | 51-200 people |
| Founded | 2008 | 2015 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Manual testing, Compatibility testing, Usability testing, AI system testing, API testing, Payment flow testing, Test automation, Localization testing, Accessibility testing, Mobile app testing, AR/VR testing, IoT and device testing | Manual testing, Compliance testing, Compatibility testing, Performance testing, QA consulting, API testing |
| Industries | Ecommerce | Games |
| Frameworkspublished by one of the two | pytest, TestNG, JUnit, Selenium, Appium, Postman | Not published |
| Engagement models | Managed testing service | Dedicated team, Project work, Time and materials |
| Client stagespublished by one of the two | Startups, Agencies | Not published |
| Certificates | No certificate confirmed by a register entry | No certificate confirmed by a register entry |
| Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA | Not confirmed / Not confirmed | Not confirmed / Not confirmed |
| Published rates |
|
|
| Minimum project | $1,000clutch.co | $1,000clutch.co |
| Onboarding | Not published | Not published |
| Crowd tester pool | Not published | Not published |
| Device lab | 600 real devicesplusqa.com | 700 real devicessnoopgame.com |
Who each one fits
PLUS QA is independently owned, and its published profile points to commercial and consumer software work that is not limited to games. SnoopGame's case history is built entirely from finished games, and its site frames its process around the certification steps that console platform holders and ratings boards require. A studio preparing a submission to a platform holder is looking at a vendor whose caseload already runs through those steps. A team shipping something outside games, an online store or an internal tool among them, is looking at a vendor whose process was never organized around them.
No security accreditation is recorded on either profile, and for work of this shape that is the gap worth pressing. A build handed to a testing vendor before release is material a studio cannot afford to see leak, and the profiles hold nothing that speaks to how either side keeps it. Ask on the first call what controls cover an unreleased build, who is granted access, and how that access is taken away when the engagement ends. Weigh the answer against the delivery locations each publishes: a control is worth what the sites it runs in make it worth.
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.
PLUS QA
PLUS QA 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 Device lab coverage, so those conditions do not separate them.
Where the data runs out
Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 71% for PLUS QA and 71% for SnoopGame. 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: Certificates, Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool. 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 PLUS QA profile and the SnoopGame profile.
Questions
- Ahead of a fixed release date, can a buyer read PLUS QA's and SnoopGame's published profiles for a stated onboarding or ramp-up period before testing starts?
- PLUS QA's published profile carries no stated ramp-up period between a signed agreement and the first executed test cycle, checked 6 September 2026. SnoopGame's published profile carries the same gap, checked 3 September 2026. A team building a schedule toward a fixed release date has no published day count from either company to anchor that plan on. Put the request for a day count from signature to first test run in writing before the statement of work is signed, together with who is staffed on the account during that stretch.
- PLUS QA and SnoopGame each publish a team size band. Does landing in the same band mean a buyer gets the same bench either way?
- PLUS QA's LinkedIn listing places its team size in the 51 to 200 employee band, checked 6 September 2026. SnoopGame's LinkedIn listing places it in the same 51 to 200 band, checked 3 September 2026. That band spans companies with barely fifty staff and companies approaching two hundred, so an identical label does not guarantee an identical headcount available for a given engagement. The published band does not break out how many of that headcount work in QA or test delivery roles specifically, so a shared label compares two ranges, not two rosters.
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.