Is an hourly rate published on each company's profile page?

QA Madness's published profile states a blended hourly rate of $25 to $49, sourced from its Clutch profile, checked 2 September 2026. QA Wolf's published profile states no hourly rate, checked 2 September 2026. A buyer weighing cost per hour can check a QA Madness quote against that published band before signing. A QA Wolf quote comes with no published number to compare it against.

What is the smallest project each company's published profile scopes for?

QA Wolf's published profile sets its floor at $5,000, sourced from its Clutch profile, checked 2 September 2026. QA Madness's sits at $1,000, from the same source, checked 2 September 2026. The distance between the figures spans the range where a short trial usually lands. A buyer whose trial budget falls in that range should ask whether the higher floor is fixed policy or an opening position, since the profile publishes the figure and not the reasoning behind it.

QA Madness vs QA Wolf

QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.

QA Madness meets the conditions for Security focus and Nearshore for the EU; QA Wolf meets none that QA Madness does not. The catalog has Client stages, Published rates only for QA Madness, and Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA only for QA Wolf. Neither publishes Certificates, Onboarding, Crowd tester pool, Device lab, so the table cannot answer those.

Field by field

QA Madness and QA Wolf compared on the fields published for every company in this catalog
Field	QA Madness	QA Wolf
Headquarters	Warsaw, Poland	Seattle, the USA
Delivery locations	Poland	the USA
Team size	51-200 people	51-200 people
Founded	2013	2019
Ownership	Independent	Independent
Services	Manual testing, Test automation, Accessibility testing, AI system testing, Performance testing, Security testing, Penetration testing, Mobile app testing, API testing, QA consulting, Localization testing, Acceptance testing, Compatibility testing	Test automation, Accessibility testing
Industries	SaaS, Ecommerce, Fintech, Healthcare, Games, Logistics, Education	Ecommerce, Banking, Games, Healthcare, Insurance
Frameworks	Cypress, Playwright, Selenium, Appium, Robot Framework, WebdriverIO, k6, Apache JMeter	Playwright, Appium
Engagement models	Project work, Dedicated team, Staff augmentation	Dedicated team
Client stagespublished by one of the two	Startups, Enterprises	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 / Yes
Published ratespublished by one of the two	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	Not published
Minimum project	$1,000clutch.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

QA Madness's practice reaches into mobile app testing carried out by hand. QA Wolf's practice stays inside automated coverage run against web applications. A buyer lands on this pair when scope spans a scripted regression suite and a mobile release that still needs someone opening the app on a handset before it ships.

An automated end-to-end run at QA Wolf typically executes against a browser or an emulator that a script drives on its own, and the published profile does not say whether physical handsets sit behind any of that work. Manual mobile testing at QA Madness works the other way around: someone has to hold the phone, so the vendor's own stock or a lab hired elsewhere stands behind every release checked this way. A buyer who wants a scripted browser suite and a mobile release from the same vendor gets a suite that plausibly runs without physical handsets and a mobile pass that cannot happen without them, and no page names where those handsets come from. Ask each vendor which devices back a mobile release before it ships, and check the answer later against whatever the device lab 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.

QA Madness

QA Wolf

QA Wolf 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 Embedded team model, Automation first, so those conditions do not separate them.

Where the data runs out

Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 86% for QA Madness and 79% for QA Wolf. 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, 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 QA Madness profile and the QA Wolf profile.

Questions

Is an hourly rate published on each company's profile page?: QA Madness's published profile states a blended hourly rate of $25 to $49, sourced from its Clutch profile, checked 2 September 2026. QA Wolf's published profile states no hourly rate, checked 2 September 2026. A buyer weighing cost per hour can check a QA Madness quote against that published band before signing. A QA Wolf quote comes with no published number to compare it against.
What is the smallest project each company's published profile scopes for?: QA Wolf's published profile sets its floor at $5,000, sourced from its Clutch profile, checked 2 September 2026. QA Madness's sits at $1,000, from the same source, checked 2 September 2026. The distance between the figures spans the range where a short trial usually lands. A buyer whose trial budget falls in that range should ask whether the higher floor is fixed policy or an opening position, since the profile publishes the figure and not the reasoning behind it.

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.