QA Wolf vs Testlio
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | QA Wolf | Testlio |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Seattle, the USA | Austin, the USA |
| Delivery locations | the USA | the USA, Estonia |
| Team size | 51-200 people | 51-200 people |
| Founded | 2019 | 2012 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | Test automation, Accessibility testing | Manual testing, Payment flow testing, AI system testing, Accessibility testing, Localization testing, Usability testing, Mobile app testing |
| Industries | Ecommerce, Banking, Games, Healthcare, Insurance | Ecommerce, Banking, Media, Education, Automotive, Travel |
| Frameworkspublished by one of the two | Playwright, Appium | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team | Crowdtesting, Dedicated team |
| Client stages | Not published | Not published |
| Certificates | No certificate confirmed by a register entry | No certificate confirmed by a register entry |
| Signs a BAA / GDPR DPA | Not confirmed / Yes | Not confirmed / Not confirmed |
| Published ratespublished by one of the two | Not published |
|
| Minimum project | $5,000clutch.co | $75,000clutch.co |
| Onboarding | Not published | Not published |
| Crowd tester pool | Not published | Not published |
| Device lab | Not published | Not published |
Who each one fits
QA Wolf and Testlio each leave the client stage field empty on their published profile, so a startup with no in-house QA lead and a public company replacing an internal team have no way to see, from the page, whether a vendor has actually served either kind of buyer before. Case studies name the industry and the metric a client reported, not the size or funding stage of the organization behind it, so the gap survives a long list of published wins. That gap carries weight here because the practices are bought for different reasons: continuous automated regression gets added to a pipeline a team already owns, while an assigned testing group stands in for a pipeline a team does not have. A buyer at the wrong end of that difference pays for capacity it cannot absorb. Ask on the first call for a client reference at a comparable headcount and funding stage, not only a comparable industry, and ask whether that reference ran under the engagement model being discussed. Check the answer later against any new case study either company publishes: a stage claim that never surfaces as a named client with a matching industry stays unverifiable.
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 Wolf
Testlio
Both meet the conditions for Embedded team model, so those conditions do not separate them.
Where the data runs out
Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 79% for QA Wolf and 71% for Testlio. 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: Client stages, 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 Wolf profile and the Testlio profile.
Questions
- Does either company's published profile state it signs a BAA or a GDPR data processing agreement?
- QA Wolf's published profile states it signs a GDPR data processing agreement, checked 2 September 2026, based on a listing under legal documents on QA Wolf's own trust center. QA Wolf's published record does not separately confirm whether it signs a BAA. Testlio's published profile takes no stated position on a BAA or a GDPR data processing agreement, checked 3 September 2026. A buyer needing a HIPAA-covered BAA in place before data changes hands should get that commitment in writing regardless of what either public profile currently shows.
- How does each company's published team size compare?
- QA Wolf's published profile places its team size in the 51-200 employee band, checked 2 September 2026. Testlio's published profile places its team size in the same 51-200 employee band, checked 3 September 2026. The catalog records one company-wide figure for each vendor. Office-level or role-level detail is not part of the published field. A buyer sizing a QA partner by headcount alone is comparing two vendors sitting in the same declared band on the page.
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.