ScienceSoft vs Testlio
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
Field by field
| Field | ScienceSoft | Testlio |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | McKinney, the USA | Austin, the USA |
| Delivery locations | the USA, Mexico, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the UAE | the USA, Estonia |
| Team size | 501-1000 people | 51-200 people |
| Founded | 1989 | 2012 |
| Ownership | Independent | Independent |
| Services | 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 | Manual testing, Payment flow testing, AI system testing, Accessibility testing, Localization testing, Usability testing, Mobile app testing |
| Industries | SaaS, Healthcare, Medical devices, Insurance, Fintech, Banking, Real estate, Ecommerce, Manufacturing, Logistics, Energy and utilities, Travel | Ecommerce, Banking, Media, Education, Automotive, Travel |
| Frameworkspublished by one of the two | Selenium, Appium, REST Assured, Apache JMeter, SoapUI, Postman | Not published |
| Engagement models | Managed testing service | Crowdtesting, 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 / Not confirmed |
| Published rates |
|
|
| 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
ScienceSoft's catalog runs wide across specialized technical work, automation built into much of it so a check can run again unattended as the software changes. Testlio's published work leans the other way: usability and localization, judged by someone moving through the live product the way a customer would, describe much of what its case studies report. A buyer meets this pair choosing between a practice that leaves behind a script running on its own and a practice that leaves behind a judgment call made on the spot.
That difference matters most once the engagement closes. A judgment call lives in a person's head and in whatever notes got written down; a script lives in a repository and can be handed to whoever holds the product next. Testlio's page names no tool behind its checks, so a buyer cannot tell whether the work leaves behind anything executable, or only the write-ups that came from running it. For a practice organized around people rather than a rig, that gap cuts deeper: there may be nothing built to survive the contract's close. Ask on the first call what keeps running after sign-off, then check the answer against whatever the frameworks field later shows.
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.
Testlio
Both meet the conditions for Nearshore for the EU, so those conditions do not separate them.
Where the data runs out
Completeness against the 14 fields of the comparison checklist is 86% for ScienceSoft 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: Certificates, 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 ScienceSoft profile and the Testlio profile.
Questions
- How many industries does each company's published profile name, and how many overlap between the two?
- ScienceSoft's published profile names twelve industries, checked 3 September 2026. Testlio's published profile names six industries, checked 3 September 2026. Ecommerce, Banking and Travel appear on both lists. A buyer whose sector falls outside those three names is comparing a stated case history on one profile against a page that says nothing about that sector at all.
- Would a small trial engagement clear the floor each company publishes?
- ScienceSoft's published profile states a minimum project size of $5,000, sourced from its Clutch listing and checked 3 September 2026. Testlio's published profile states a minimum project size of $75,000, sourced from its Clutch listing and checked 3 September 2026. A trial is usually scoped small enough to walk away from, and only the lower of these floors leaves room for that. Where the higher floor applies, the first purchase is already a commitment, which moves the questions a buyer has to settle to before signing rather than after.
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.