How large a tester pool can a crowdtesting vendor actually call on?

It spans roughly three orders of magnitude. Seven profiles here publish a pool size, and the figures run 1,300, 55,000, 60,000, 120,000, 145,035, 1,028,000 and 1,500,000, each with its own source. The field records the size of the pool a company states it can call on, as the company reported it. A pool in the low thousands and a pool past a million sit under the same engagement model, so the model itself places a candidate nowhere along that range and the published figure is the only thing that does.

Our release needs checkout flows exercised by people in several markets. What do vendors working this way actually sell?

They sell manual testing above everything else, 11 of the 14 profiles carrying it. Usability testing follows on 9 profiles and accessibility testing on 8. Payment testing appears on 7, half the composition, and the whole catalog records that service on nine profiles, so seven of the nine sit here. Localization testing and mobile app testing each appear on 6, and test automation on 6 as well. For a checkout flow exercised by people in several markets, the payment and localization lines are the two the composition publishes most often against that shape of work.

Does a larger published pool mean more testers on our release?

No. The pool figure records how many people a company states it can call on in total, and this catalog holds no field for how many of them get assigned to one test cycle. A company publishing a pool in the hundreds of thousands and one publishing tens of thousands could put the same number of testers on a given release, and nothing published here would show the difference. The pool figure bounds what a company can reach; it says nothing about what it commits to a single engagement.

Best QA companies for crowdtesting in 2026

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

14 testing companies in this catalog offer crowdtesting as an engagement model. They are grouped below by what each is best suited for, in 7 groups. 4 of them hold a certificate confirmed by a register entry and 4 publish a rate card. Composition and order last changed on September 3, 2026.

14 companies. Ordered by the number of verified reviews on external platforms, highest first. Companies with an equal count are ordered by name.

The companies

Crowdtesting: 14 companies, grouped by what they are best suited for.
#	Company	Published rates	Minimum project	Onboarding	Reviews
Nearshore for the EU At least one delivery location in the EU or the EEA, or in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Moldova.
1	Testlio	Blended $25-49/hgoodfirms.co	$75,000clutch.co	Not published	76
2	Global App Testing	Not published	$10,000globalapptesting.com	Not published	66
3	Applause	Not published	Not published	Not published	39
4	UNGUESS	Not published	Not published	Not published	27
5	QA Mentor	Blended up to $25/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	7
6	Beta Family	Not published	Not published	Not published	2
7	MTP	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Crowdtesting at scale The crowdtesting engagement model is offered, and a published tester pool of 10,000 people or more, with a source.
2	Global App Testing	Not published	$10,000globalapptesting.com	Not published	66
3	Applause	Not published	Not published	Not published	39
4	UNGUESS	Not published	Not published	Not published	27
8	Ubertesters	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	7
6	Beta Family	Not published	Not published	Not published	2
9	Digivante	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Embedded team model The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study.
1	Testlio	Blended $25-49/hgoodfirms.co	$75,000clutch.co	Not published	76
8	Ubertesters	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	7
10	QualityAI	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Automation first Test automation is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a coverage or regression time metric.
11	BugRaptors	Blended up to $25/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	26
10	QualityAI	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Device lab coverage A published device lab of 100 real devices or more, with a source.
8	Ubertesters	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	7
Nearshore for the USA At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.
7	MTP	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Performance engineering Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric.
11	BugRaptors	Blended up to $25/hclutch.co	$1,000clutch.co	Not published	26
Other companies in this axis No applicability tag met its criterion for these profiles.
12	Bugcrowd	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
13	Bugwolf	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
14	Secuna	Not published	Not published	Not published	0

What the crowdtesting engagement model records

Crowdtesting is an engagement model: a field on a company profile that records how testing work gets staffed. A company carrying this model routes work to an independently contracted pool of testers who get activated for a specific test cycle, separate from a dedicated team that stays attached to one client's project over time. This structural choice puts a company on this page, regardless of team size, founding year or headquarters location. 14 companies carry this engagement model and appear on this page. Seven applicability tags narrow the picture further: each records a separate, specific claim a company has published about its tester pool, its delivery locations, or a service it sells alongside crowdtesting. A company can carry several of these tags, one of them, or none.

How Nearshore for the EU and Crowdtesting at scale overlap

Nearshore for the EU applies to 7 of the 14 companies on this page, and Crowdtesting at scale applies to 6. Four companies carry both tags: Global App Testing, Applause, UNGUESS and Beta Family. Three companies carry Nearshore for the EU without Crowdtesting at scale: Testlio, QA Mentor and MTP. Two companies carry Crowdtesting at scale without Nearshore for the EU: Ubertesters and Digivante.

Testlio also carries Embedded team model, its only tag beyond Nearshore for the EU. MTP also carries Nearshore for the USA, a tag no other company on this page carries. Ubertesters also carries Device lab coverage, likewise unique to it on this page. QA Mentor and Digivante each carry no other applicability tag on this page.

Embedded team, automation and performance tags

Embedded team model applies to three companies on this page: Testlio, Ubertesters and QualityAI. Testlio and QualityAI each carry exactly one other applicability tag, Nearshore for the EU and Automation first respectively, and Ubertesters carries two. No company on this page carries Embedded team model on its own, without a second tag.

QualityAI and BugRaptors are the only two companies carrying Automation first. BugRaptors also carries Performance engineering, a tag no other company on this page carries. Ubertesters is the only company on this page carrying three applicability tags. Every other company on this page carries two, one or none.

Three companies without an applicability tag

Bugcrowd, Bugwolf and Secuna carry the crowdtesting engagement model and appear on this page. None of the seven applicability tags on this page applies to any of the three. An absent tag is not a shortfall against a tag's criterion, only the absence of a published claim this catalog can check.

Where the record thins across fourteen profiles

Ten other fields thin out across this set of 14, in a range from a single missing answer to twelve. Services offered is unrecorded for 1 of the 14 companies, a smaller gap than any other field in this list. Named clients and industries served are each unrecorded for 2 of the 14. A published case study is unrecorded for 5 of the 14, and external reviews on outside platforms are unrecorded for 6 of the 14. A named client stage is unrecorded for 7 of the 14. Confirmed certificates and a published rate are each unrecorded for 10 of the 14, tied with each other, and behind only two larger gaps in this list. A framework or tool list is unrecorded for 11 of the 14. A signed BAA or a GDPR data processing agreement is unrecorded for 12 of the 14, a bigger gap than any other field in this list. That gap matters here because a crowdtesting pool routes test data through people who are not a company's own staff.

Reading a pool-size or device-lab figure without a data agreement

A pool-size figure and a device-lab count each answer a narrower question than a signed data agreement does. A large number in either field describes the scale a vendor could mobilize once a contract sets data-handling terms. It says nothing on its own about how that data gets handled once the work starts. Asking a vendor directly for a signed data agreement, a current rate, or a framework list closes a gap that public sources alone do not close here.

How this ranking was put together

Membership is computed from the profile, not chosen: companies appear here when they offer crowdtesting as an engagement model, as their own profile states. Position in a ranking cannot be bought. Paid options are limited to the extended profile, labelled sponsor slots and lead forms, and none of them affect tags or order.

The table compares the fields that decide this axis: published rates, minimum project, onboarding, plus the number of verified reviews on external platforms. Rates, minimum project size and onboarding time carry the source they came from next to the value.

Nearshore for the EU: At least one delivery location in the EU or the EEA, or in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Moldova.
Crowdtesting at scale: The crowdtesting engagement model is offered, and a published tester pool of 10,000 people or more, with a source.
Embedded team model: The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study.
Automation first: Test automation is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a coverage or regression time metric.
Device lab coverage: A published device lab of 100 real devices or more, with a source.
Nearshore for the USA: At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.
Performance engineering: Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric.

The criteria for this axis are on the methodology page, together with field definitions and the rule for editorial order. Changes of order are recorded in the changelog.

Questions

How large a tester pool can a crowdtesting vendor actually call on?: It spans roughly three orders of magnitude. Seven profiles here publish a pool size, and the figures run 1,300, 55,000, 60,000, 120,000, 145,035, 1,028,000 and 1,500,000, each with its own source. The field records the size of the pool a company states it can call on, as the company reported it. A pool in the low thousands and a pool past a million sit under the same engagement model, so the model itself places a candidate nowhere along that range and the published figure is the only thing that does.
Our release needs checkout flows exercised by people in several markets. What do vendors working this way actually sell?: They sell manual testing above everything else, 11 of the 14 profiles carrying it. Usability testing follows on 9 profiles and accessibility testing on 8. Payment testing appears on 7, half the composition, and the whole catalog records that service on nine profiles, so seven of the nine sit here. Localization testing and mobile app testing each appear on 6, and test automation on 6 as well. For a checkout flow exercised by people in several markets, the payment and localization lines are the two the composition publishes most often against that shape of work.
Does a larger published pool mean more testers on our release?: No. The pool figure records how many people a company states it can call on in total, and this catalog holds no field for how many of them get assigned to one test cycle. A company publishing a pool in the hundreds of thousands and one publishing tens of thousands could put the same number of testers on a given release, and nothing published here would show the difference. The pool figure bounds what a company can reach; it says nothing about what it commits to a single engagement.

Previous versions

Each year is frozen as it stood when the snapshot was taken, with the field values recorded at that date. This page always shows the current version.

The 2026 list: 11 companies, taken 2026-09-03. 3 entered and 0 left since.

Other axes these companies appear on

Industry: Ecommerce 11 of these 14 companies also stand there
Type of testing: Manual testing 11 of these 14 companies also stand there
Delivery location: Europe 10 of these 14 companies also stand there
Industry: Healthcare 9 of these 14 companies also stand there

How to choose a vendor on this axis

Published by QA RatingPublished on September 3, 2026Updated on September 4, 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.