Best Selenium QA companies in 2026
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
The companies
| # | Company | Case studies | Published rates | Team size | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nearshore for the EU At least one delivery location in the EU or the EEA, or in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Moldova. | |||||
| 1 | ScienceSoft | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 2 | DeviQA | 5 |
| 201-500 people | 44 |
| 3 | QA Madness | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 44 |
| 4 | TestFort | 5 |
| 51-200 people | 32 |
| 5 | Luxe Quality | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 21 |
| 6 | a1qa | 3 |
| 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 7 | QATestLab | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 8 | QAwerk | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 13 |
| 9 | Savarian.tech | 3 |
| 11-50 people | 8 |
| 10 | AskYourQA | 1 |
| 1-10 people | 7 |
| 11 | QA Mentor | Not published |
| 201-500 people | 7 |
| 12 | Codoid | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 5 |
| 13 | Digi Test Lab | Not published |
| 11-50 people | 5 |
| 14 | Soflab Technology | 1 |
| 51-200 people | 3 |
| 15 | appmatics GmbH | 7 | Not published | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 16 | BetterQA | 4 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 17 | QAValue | Not published |
| 11-50 people | 0 |
| 18 | Qytera Quality GmbH | 7 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Automation first Test automation is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a coverage or regression time metric. | |||||
| 1 | ScienceSoft | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 2 | DeviQA | 5 |
| 201-500 people | 44 |
| 3 | QA Madness | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 44 |
| 19 | QualityLogic | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 37 |
| 20 | QASource | 1 |
| 1000 or more people | 29 |
| 21 | BugRaptors | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 26 |
| 5 | Luxe Quality | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 21 |
| 6 | a1qa | 3 |
| 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 22 | OnPath Testing | 3 |
| 11-50 people | 17 |
| 8 | QAwerk | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 13 |
| 23 | QAble | 4 |
| 51-200 people | 8 |
| 9 | Savarian.tech | 3 |
| 11-50 people | 8 |
| 24 | Frugal Testing | 1 |
| 51-200 people | 7 |
| 25 | Moolya | 4 |
| 501-1000 people | 7 |
| 12 | Codoid | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 5 |
| 15 | appmatics GmbH | 7 | Not published | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 16 | BetterQA | 4 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Embedded team model The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study. | |||||
| 2 | DeviQA | 5 |
| 201-500 people | 44 |
| 3 | QA Madness | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 44 |
| 4 | TestFort | 5 |
| 51-200 people | 32 |
| 20 | QASource | 1 |
| 1000 or more people | 29 |
| 6 | a1qa | 3 |
| 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 8 | QAwerk | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 13 |
| 23 | QAble | 4 |
| 51-200 people | 8 |
| 15 | appmatics GmbH | 7 | Not published | 201-500 people | 0 |
| Performance engineering Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric. | |||||
| 19 | QualityLogic | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 37 |
| 4 | TestFort | 5 |
| 51-200 people | 32 |
| 20 | QASource | 1 |
| 1000 or more people | 29 |
| 21 | BugRaptors | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 26 |
| 7 | QATestLab | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 14 | Soflab Technology | 1 |
| 51-200 people | 3 |
| 26 | MuukTest | 5 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 18 | Qytera Quality GmbH | 7 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Security focus Security testing is offered, together with either penetration testing or a verified ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, and at least one published case study. | |||||
| 1 | ScienceSoft | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 2 | DeviQA | 5 |
| 201-500 people | 44 |
| 3 | QA Madness | 2 |
| 51-200 people | 44 |
| 7 | QATestLab | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 8 | QAwerk | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 13 |
| 16 | BetterQA | 4 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Device lab coverage A published device lab of 100 real devices or more, with a source. | |||||
| 2 | DeviQA | 5 |
| 201-500 people | 44 |
| 19 | QualityLogic | 3 |
| 51-200 people | 37 |
| 7 | QATestLab | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 27 | PLUS QA | Not published |
| 51-200 people | 8 |
| Nearshore for the USA At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America. | |||||
| 1 | ScienceSoft | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 20 | QASource | 1 |
| 1000 or more people | 29 |
| 6 | a1qa | 3 |
| 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 28 | ILoveMyQA | Not published |
| 11-50 people | 11 |
| Fast onboarding A published onboarding time of 14 days or less, with a source. | |||||
| 7 | QATestLab | 2 |
| 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 29 | CHEQ Systems | Not published | Not published | 201-500 people | 0 |
| Regulated industries At least two verified certificates from ISO 13485, HITRUST CSF, PCI QSA and ISO/IEC 27001. | |||||
| 16 | BetterQA | 4 | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Other companies in this axis No applicability tag met its criterion for these profiles. | |||||
| 30 | Coderio | Not published |
| 501-1000 people | 10 |
| 31 | Lotus Quality Assurance | Not published | Not published | 201-500 people | 9 |
| 32 | Testrig Technologies | Not published |
| 51-200 people | 7 |
| 33 | Testriq QA Lab | Not published |
| 51-200 people | 6 |
| 34 | iBeta Quality Assurance | 1 |
| 51-200 people | 4 |
| 35 | Pointwest | Not published | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 36 | Testbytes | Not published |
| 51-200 people | 0 |
| 37 | TestVagrant | Not published | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
Two large tags, only partly overlapping
Nearshore for the EU and Automation first are the two largest applicability tags on this page, covering 18 and 17 of the 37 companies. The two groups overlap only in part: 10 of the 17 Automation first companies also carry Nearshore for the EU, and the remaining 7, QualityLogic, QASource, BugRaptors, OnPath Testing, QAble, Frugal Testing and Moolya, do not. Security focus behaves differently from Automation first: every one of the 6 companies that carry it, ScienceSoft, DeviQA, QA Madness, QATestLab, QAwerk and BetterQA, also carries Nearshore for the EU. On this page the Security focus group sits entirely inside the EU nearshoring group instead of running alongside it as a separate population.
Delivery-location tags are not exclusive of each other
Nearshore for the EU and Nearshore for the USA describe delivery locations in different regions, but a company can qualify for both at once. Two of the four companies with Nearshore for the USA, ScienceSoft and a1qa, also carry Nearshore for the EU, while the other two, QASource and ILoveMyQA, carry the USA tag on its own. A similar pattern shows up around device coverage: of the four companies with Device lab coverage, DeviQA and QualityLogic also carry Automation first, while QATestLab and PLUS QA do not; QATestLab carries four other tags on this page, and Device lab coverage is the only one of the nine that PLUS QA carries. The condition behind Device lab coverage, a published lab of 100 real devices or more with a source, says nothing about browser automation, so the tag can sit next to almost any combination of the other eight.
Eight companies outside the tag map
Eight of the 37 companies, Coderio, Lotus Quality Assurance, Testrig Technologies, Testriq QA Lab, iBeta Quality Assurance, Pointwest, Testbytes and TestVagrant, do not qualify for any of the nine tags mapped on this page. Each tag has its own threshold, and a company can fall short of every one of them while still publishing a rate, a case study or a review elsewhere on its profile.
Verified certification is the thinnest field tracked for this group: only 2 of the 37 companies have a confirmed certificate on file, against 29 with a published hourly rate, 28 with external platform reviews and 24 with at least one case study. That scarcity is why Regulated industries, which requires at least two verified certificates from a fixed list, holds only 1 company on this page. Four tags on this page read a published case study as part of their condition: Automation first, Performance engineering, Embedded team model and Security focus. The 13 companies with no case study on file carry none of the four, and 22 of the 24 companies that do publish one carry at least one of them.
How this ranking was put together
Membership is computed from the profile, not chosen: companies appear here when they list Selenium among the frameworks and tools they work with, 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: case studies, published rates, team size, 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.
- Automation first: Test automation is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a coverage or regression time metric.
- Embedded team model: The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study.
- Performance engineering: Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric.
- Security focus: Security testing is offered, together with either penetration testing or a verified ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, and at least one published case study.
- 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.
- Fast onboarding: A published onboarding time of 14 days or less, with a source.
- Regulated industries: At least two verified certificates from ISO 13485, HITRUST CSF, PCI QSA and ISO/IEC 27001.
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
- Does a strong review count and rating on an outside platform show that a company is good at Selenium automation specifically?
- No. A review record only carries the platform name, how many reviews were counted and the average score; it says nothing about which service, framework or project type earned that feedback. Coverage is uneven across platforms here: Clutch carries a count for 28 profiles, GoodFirms for 10 and G2 for 4, and several profiles show more than one platform at once, while others show none. A high count and rating confirm that a company has gathered outside feedback somewhere in its business; the record does not say whether that feedback covers Selenium work, manual testing, performance testing or another service the same company sells.
- Automated tests outlive the people who write them. Do the published engagement models say who ends up owning the suite?
- Partly, through what each model is defined to mean. Managed testing service is defined in this catalog as the vendor owning the test process and reporting against agreed service levels, and it is the most common entry here, published by 16 of the 37 companies, six of which publish it alone. A dedicated team appears on 11 profiles and staff augmentation on 11, and both of those place testers next to the buyer's own people rather than behind a service level. Eight companies publish no engagement model at all, so for those eight nothing on record says which of the two shapes the work would take.
- Since Selenium provides bindings in several programming languages, does a company's profile say which one its automation team uses?
- No. No field in a company profile records a programming language, and that holds for every one of the 37 companies on this page, because the schema behind the catalog does not carry a language attribute at all. The catalog records services offered, delivery locations, team size, certificates, published rates and case studies, but Selenium's own definition, a library with bindings in several languages, points straight at the one property the data model leaves out. A buyer who cares which binding a team writes its suites in is asking a question the catalog has no field to answer, here or anywhere else in it.
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: 26 companies, taken 2026-09-03. 11 entered and 0 left since.
Other axes these companies appear on
- Type of testing: Test automation 35 of these 37 companies also stand there
- Industry: Ecommerce 33 of these 37 companies also stand there
- Type of testing: Manual testing 32 of these 37 companies also stand there
- Type of testing: Performance testing 30 of these 37 companies also stand there
Published by QA RatingPublished on September 3, 2026Updated on September 3, 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.