Best Ecommerce QA companies in 2026
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
The companies
| # | Company | Certificates | Case studies | 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 | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 2 | Testlio | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 76 |
| 3 | Global App Testing | ISO/IEC 27001register entry | 4 | 51-200 people | 66 |
| 4 | Edgescan | ISO/IEC 27001register entryCRESTregister entry | 1 | 51-200 people | 53 |
| 5 | DeviQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 44 |
| 6 | QA Madness | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 44 |
| 7 | Berezha Security Group | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 40 |
| 8 | BreachLock | CRESTregister entry | Not published | 51-200 people | 40 |
| 9 | Applause | None confirmed | 3 | 201-500 people | 39 |
| 10 | TestFort | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 32 |
| 11 | UNGUESS | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entry | 1 | 51-200 people | 27 |
| 12 | Luxe Quality | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 21 |
| 13 | a1qa | None confirmed | 3 | 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 14 | Iterasec | CRESTregister entry | 1 | 11-50 people | 19 |
| 15 | QATestLab | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 16 | White Test Lab | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 14 |
| 17 | QAwerk | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 13 |
| 18 | Savarian.tech | None confirmed | 3 | 11-50 people | 8 |
| 19 | AskYourQA | None confirmed | 1 | 1-10 people | 7 |
| 20 | QA Mentor | None confirmed | Not published | 201-500 people | 7 |
| 21 | Codoid | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 5 |
| 22 | Soflab Technology | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 3 |
| 23 | andagon people GmbH | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 24 | appmatics GmbH | None confirmed | 7 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 25 | BetterQA | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entryISO 13485register entry | 4 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 26 | Devoteam Cyber Trust | CRESTregister entry | Not published | Not published | 0 |
| 27 | Ethiack | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 28 | Euro-Testing Software Solutions | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 29 | QAValue | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 30 | Tarlogic Security | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 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 | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 31 | QA Wolf | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 65 |
| 5 | DeviQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 44 |
| 6 | QA Madness | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 44 |
| 32 | QualityLogic | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 37 |
| 33 | BugRaptors | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 26 |
| 34 | Abstracta | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 24 |
| 12 | Luxe Quality | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 21 |
| 35 | QAlified | None confirmed | 5 | 11-50 people | 21 |
| 13 | a1qa | None confirmed | 3 | 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 36 | OnPath Testing | None confirmed | 3 | 11-50 people | 17 |
| 17 | QAwerk | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 13 |
| 37 | QAble | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 8 |
| 18 | Savarian.tech | None confirmed | 3 | 11-50 people | 8 |
| 38 | Frugal Testing | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 7 |
| 39 | Moolya | None confirmed | 4 | 501-1000 people | 7 |
| 40 | Sofka Technologies | None confirmed | 1 | 501-1000 people | 7 |
| 21 | Codoid | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 5 |
| 41 | Software Testing Bureau | None confirmed | 1 | 11-50 people | 1 |
| 23 | andagon people GmbH | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 24 | appmatics GmbH | None confirmed | 7 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 25 | BetterQA | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entryISO 13485register entry | 4 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 42 | ImpactQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 43 | QualityAI | None confirmed | 2 | 1000 or more people | 0 |
| 44 | QualityKiosk Technologies | None confirmed | 5 | 1000 or more people | 0 |
| 45 | Testhouse | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 0 |
| Embedded team model The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study. | |||||
| 2 | Testlio | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 76 |
| 31 | QA Wolf | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 65 |
| 5 | DeviQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 44 |
| 6 | QA Madness | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 44 |
| 10 | TestFort | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 32 |
| 13 | a1qa | None confirmed | 3 | 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 17 | QAwerk | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 13 |
| 37 | QAble | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 8 |
| 46 | Ubertesters | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 7 |
| 24 | appmatics GmbH | None confirmed | 7 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 42 | ImpactQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 43 | QualityAI | None confirmed | 2 | 1000 or more people | 0 |
| Nearshore for the USA At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America. | |||||
| 1 | ScienceSoft | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 47 | Packetlabs | CRESTregister entry | Not published | 51-200 people | 72 |
| 34 | Abstracta | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 24 |
| 35 | QAlified | None confirmed | 5 | 11-50 people | 21 |
| 13 | a1qa | None confirmed | 3 | 1000 or more people | 20 |
| 48 | ILoveMyQA | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 11 |
| 40 | Sofka Technologies | None confirmed | 1 | 501-1000 people | 7 |
| 49 | CyStack | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 1 |
| 41 | Software Testing Bureau | None confirmed | 1 | 11-50 people | 1 |
| 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 | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 85 |
| 4 | Edgescan | ISO/IEC 27001register entryCRESTregister entry | 1 | 51-200 people | 53 |
| 5 | DeviQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 44 |
| 6 | QA Madness | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 44 |
| 50 | Qualysec | None confirmed | 2 | 51-200 people | 31 |
| 15 | QATestLab | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 17 | QAwerk | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 13 |
| 25 | BetterQA | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entryISO 13485register entry | 4 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 51 | Bishop Fox | CRESTregister entry | 5 | 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. | |||||
| 32 | QualityLogic | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 37 |
| 10 | TestFort | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 32 |
| 33 | BugRaptors | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 26 |
| 34 | Abstracta | None confirmed | 4 | 51-200 people | 24 |
| 15 | QATestLab | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 52 | PFLB | None confirmed | 5 | 51-200 people | 6 |
| 22 | Soflab Technology | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 3 |
| 53 | MuukTest | None confirmed | 5 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Crowdtesting at scale The crowdtesting engagement model is offered, and a published tester pool of 10,000 people or more, with a source. | |||||
| 3 | Global App Testing | ISO/IEC 27001register entry | 4 | 51-200 people | 66 |
| 9 | Applause | None confirmed | 3 | 201-500 people | 39 |
| 11 | UNGUESS | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entry | 1 | 51-200 people | 27 |
| 46 | Ubertesters | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 7 |
| 54 | Digivante | None confirmed | 4 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Device lab coverage A published device lab of 100 real devices or more, with a source. | |||||
| 5 | DeviQA | None confirmed | 5 | 201-500 people | 44 |
| 32 | QualityLogic | None confirmed | 3 | 51-200 people | 37 |
| 15 | QATestLab | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 17 |
| 55 | PLUS QA | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 8 |
| 46 | Ubertesters | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 7 |
| Accessibility specialists Accessibility testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports an accessibility conformance metric. | |||||
| 56 | Vervali Systems | None confirmed | 1 | 51-200 people | 11 |
| Fast onboarding A published onboarding time of 14 days or less, with a source. | |||||
| 15 | QATestLab | None confirmed | 2 | 501-1000 people | 17 |
| Regulated industries At least two verified certificates from ISO 13485, HITRUST CSF, PCI QSA and ISO/IEC 27001. | |||||
| 25 | BetterQA | ISO/IEC 27001register entryISO 9001register entryISO 13485register entry | 4 | 11-50 people | 0 |
| Other companies in this axis No applicability tag met its criterion for these profiles. | |||||
| 57 | Indium Software | None confirmed | 1 | 1000 or more people | 21 |
| 58 | Coderio | None confirmed | Not published | 501-1000 people | 10 |
| 59 | Kualitatem | TMMiregister entry | Not published | 51-200 people | 9 |
| 60 | Lotus Quality Assurance | None confirmed | Not published | 201-500 people | 9 |
| 61 | Halo Security | None confirmed | 2 | 11-50 people | 8 |
| 62 | Testrig Technologies | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 7 |
| 63 | Testriq QA Lab | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 6 |
| 64 | iBeta Quality Assurance | ISO/IEC 17025expired September 30, 2023 | 1 | 51-200 people | 4 |
| 65 | Bugcrowd | CRESTregister entryFedRAMPregister entryCSA STARregister entry | 2 | 201-500 people | 0 |
| 66 | Bugwolf | None confirmed | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
| 67 | Pointwest | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 68 | QualiZeal | None confirmed | Not published | 1000 or more people | 0 |
| 69 | Testbytes | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 70 | TestingXperts | None confirmed | 1 | 1000 or more people | 0 |
| 71 | TestVagrant | None confirmed | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 72 | VSEC | CRESTregister entry | Not published | 51-200 people | 0 |
| 73 | Zoonou | CRESTregister entry | Not published | 11-50 people | 0 |
Which country's calendar decides who is on call during a sale week
Nearshore for the EU is the largest tag on this page, reaching 30 of the 73 companies. The condition reads a delivery-location field rather than a headquarters address: Codoid is headquartered in India and still meets it, because one of its delivery locations sits in Norway, an EEA member. Nearshore for the USA reaches a separate 9 companies through a matching condition, a delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America; ScienceSoft and a1qa each clear both.
A sale calendar runs on the clock of one market at a time: a Black Friday week timed to US hours, a national holiday sale local to one storefront. The delivery-location field, and not the registered headquarters, decides who is working when that week's spike starts, so the question for a shortlisted vendor is which listed location the account will be staffed from during the week being planned for.
Whose devices actually reach the checkout
Device lab coverage reaches 5 companies here, DeviQA, QualityLogic, QATestLab, PLUS QA and Ubertesters, each with a published lab of at least 100 real devices. Crowdtesting at scale reaches a separate 5, Global App Testing, Applause, UNGUESS, Ubertesters again and Digivante, each with a published tester pool of at least 10,000 people. Only Ubertesters carries both.
A device count says how many handsets sit on a shelf. A pool count says how many people are enrolled, and says nothing about which phones or browsers they carry into a live checkout. Digivante's case for Audi UK's first ecommerce platform is built on exactly that pool: device compatibility and usability testing run across the phones and browsers its crowd already owns. A buyer weighing the two figures can ask what device or browser breakdown sits behind whichever one is published.
Which automation figure actually names a storefront
Automation first is the second-largest tag on this page, reaching 26 of the 73 companies once automation is offered as a service and backed by a published case reporting a coverage or regression-time figure. Luxe Quality's case is titled "E-Commerce Platform Transformation," naming the kind of system its figure was measured on. Many of the other 25 report the same kind of number for a different product, without naming a storefront as the subject.
A regression suite built for a sale-week code freeze has to cover the entire purchase path, not one flow inside it. The tag confirms a coverage or regression number exists in a published case; it does not say which part of the storefront produced that number, checkout, catalog search or account creation. A buyer can ask which part of the site a candidate's published figure was actually measured against.
Which load figure was tested at a sale-week traffic level
Performance engineering reaches 8 companies: QualityLogic, TestFort, BugRaptors, Abstracta, QATestLab, PFLB, Soflab Technology and MuukTest, each with a published case reporting a throughput or latency figure. Two of the eight name a storefront directly: QATestLab's case, "Cherrybrook Premium Pet Supplies Shop load testing," and PFLB's case, "Tynor's New E-Commerce Site Was 30x Too Slow. We Had Four Days.," describe fixing a live site instead of running a lab benchmark.
Ecommerce traffic is not flat across the year: a sale week can run at a multiple of ordinary load, and a latency figure measured against routine traffic does not say what happens once checkout requests arrive at that multiple. The other six cases report a figure without naming the system it came from. A buyer preparing for a fixed sale date can ask what traffic multiple a figure was tested against, and what broke first once that multiple was reached.
The untagged group, and why a sale-week buyer should still read it
Seventeen of the 73 companies on this page carry no applicability tag: Indium Software, Coderio, Kualitatem, Lotus Quality Assurance, Halo Security, Testrig Technologies, Testriq QA Lab, iBeta Quality Assurance, Bugcrowd, Bugwolf, Pointwest, QualiZeal, Testbytes, TestingXperts, TestVagrant, VSEC and Zoonou. Every condition behind the tags above is written out on the methodology page with the fields it reads, and those same fields sit on each of these profiles too, only not in the combination a tag requires.
iBeta Quality Assurance holds a verified ISO/IEC 17025 certificate, an accreditation for testing laboratories, and a published case reporting a presentation-attack-detection metric for a biometric product. Neither field clears a tag on this axis: the certificate is not one of the four counted toward the Regulated industries condition, and the case reports a metric outside what the other tags check for. Carrying no tag is a record of what has been published in a checkable form, and a group with no tag is a different group from one that failed a check.
How this ranking was put together
Membership is computed from the profile, not chosen: companies appear here when they list Ecommerce among the industries they work in, 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: certificates, case studies, 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.
- Nearshore for the USA: At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.
- 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.
- Performance engineering: Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric.
- Crowdtesting at scale: The crowdtesting engagement model is offered, and a published tester pool of 10,000 people or more, with a source.
- Device lab coverage: A published device lab of 100 real devices or more, with a source.
- Accessibility specialists: Accessibility testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports an accessibility conformance metric.
- 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
- When should I expect to pay more than the entry-level hourly rate for ecommerce testing work?
- A quote above the entry-level range on this axis typically covers scope beyond routine functional checks, such as checkout and payment-gateway coverage sized for a seasonal traffic peak like Black Friday, or regression testing across a catalog running into tens of thousands of SKUs together with their returns flow. Of the 44 companies on this page that publish a blended hourly rate, 24 sit in the 25-49 USD band, the most common published range. Two reach the 100-149 USD band, the highest published here. Before accepting a rate above the 25-49 USD band, a buyer can ask what payment-gateway testing or peak-load coverage the quote includes, since a published number alone does not state scope.
- How many companies on this axis record which stage of client they serve, and what does a missing entry mean?
- 30 of the 73 companies on this axis have at least one client stage recorded in their profile. 43 companies have no client-stage field filled in. A blank client-stage field means the position was not found published, which is a different fact from a company stating that it works with clients at any stage.
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: 51 companies, taken 2026-09-03. 22 entered and 0 left since.
Other axes these companies appear on
- Type of testing: Manual testing 49 of these 73 companies also stand there
- Type of testing: Test automation 49 of these 73 companies also stand there
- Delivery location: Europe 42 of these 73 companies also stand there
- Delivery location: the USA 42 of these 73 companies also stand there
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.