Best Secure code review companies in 2026
QA Rating is published independently, and its publisher owns no company listed in this catalog.
The companies
| # | Company | Frameworks | Case studies | Published rates | Reviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nearshore for the EU At least one delivery location in the EU or the EEA, or in Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Moldova. | |||||
| 1 | Berezha Security Group | Not published | Not published |
| 40 |
| 2 | BreachLock | Not published | Not published | Not published | 40 |
| 3 | Bit Sentinel | Not published | Not published | Not published | 0 |
| 4 | Cobalt | Not published | 2 | Not published | 0 |
| 5 | Devoteam Cyber Trust | Not published | Not published | Not published | 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. | |||||
| 6 | Qualysec | Not published | 2 |
| 31 |
| 7 | NetSPI | Not published | 2 | Not published | 11 |
| 8 | Bishop Fox | Not published | 5 | Not published | 0 |
| 4 | Cobalt | Not published | 2 | Not published | 0 |
| Nearshore for the USA At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America. | |||||
| 9 | Software Secured | Not published | 2 | Not published | 20 |
| 7 | NetSPI | Not published | 2 | Not published | 11 |
| Other companies in this axis No applicability tag met its criterion for these profiles. | |||||
| 10 | Testbytes | Selenium, Apache JMeter, Appium | Not published |
| 0 |
Group sizes and overlaps on this page
Nearshore for the EU is the largest tag group on this page, covering five of the ten companies. Security focus is next, covering four. Nearshore for the USA is the smallest of the three, covering two. Cobalt holds both Nearshore for the EU and Security focus, and NetSPI holds both Security focus and Nearshore for the USA. Across all ten companies, no company holds tags from all three groups, and no company holds both nearshore tags at the same time. Counting each of the ten companies once, the three groups together reach nine of the ten.
Outside the two overlaps, four companies hold Nearshore for the EU on its own: Berezha Security Group, BreachLock, Bit Sentinel and Devoteam Cyber Trust. Two companies hold Security focus on its own: Qualysec and Bishop Fox. Software Secured holds Nearshore for the USA on its own. Testbytes is the only company among the ten that carries none of the three group tags.
Gaps in the published profiles
Some fields are missing across most of the ten profiles in this group. Frameworks and signing a BAA or a GDPR DPA are each unfilled for nine of the ten profiles, tied for the largest gap on this page. Client stages and published rates are each unfilled for seven of ten. Certificates, case studies and external reviews are each unfilled for five of ten; among the five profiles where a certificate is confirmed, the certificate is CREST in every case. Engagement models are unfilled for four of the ten profiles. Named clients show the smallest gap on this page, unfilled for only one of the ten profiles. Every other field tracked for this group is filled for all ten companies, and only the nine fields named above show any gap.
An unfilled field on this page means that no published answer was found for it, which differs from a confirmed negative answer such as a stated absence of certification.
How this ranking was put together
Membership is computed from the profile, not chosen: companies appear here when they list Secure code review among their services, 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: frameworks, case studies, published rates, 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.
- 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.
- Nearshore for the USA: At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.
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
- Reading our code means giving an outside team access to the repository. What does a profile settle about that before we approach anyone?
- Nothing about the access itself. This catalog records what a company sells, where it delivers from and who it has worked for. It holds no field for what a company requires before it is granted repository access, whether it reads a codebase in full or works from a selected sample of it, or which programming languages it is prepared to read. Those three terms bound this particular engagement more tightly than anything the profiles do carry, and a profile with every field filled would answer them no better than a profile with most of them empty.
- What can we learn about price from the profiles before a first call?
- Only about the lower end. Two companies publish a rate band of 25 to 49 US dollars an hour and one publishes a band below 25 dollars, and those are the only figures published. Not one of those three carries a confirmed certificate, and not one of the certified companies publishes a rate, so the priced side and the certified side never meet on a single profile. A budget line drawn from the published figures describes companies that hold no certificate, and nothing published prices the ones that do.
- We want an architecture and code-quality review rather than a security audit. Is that the same service?
- Probably not. The service collected on this axis is recorded as secure code review, and the composition reflects that: every company here also sells penetration testing and nine of the ten also sell red teaming. What a profile matched on is the security reading of source code, and no field separates a company that would assess a codebase for maintainability or structure from one that reads it for vulnerabilities, because only the second is what this axis gathers. A buyer who wants the first kind of review is choosing among companies matched on the second, and nothing published about the ten says which of them would take that work on.
- Is secure code review the practice a company is built around, or one line on a wider testing menu?
- By the published service lists, it is a security practice for nine of the ten. Those nine publish between three and seven services each, and beside the secure code review that places them here they sell penetration testing and red teaming without exception, security testing on most profiles and attack surface management on three; compliance testing, IoT and device testing, performance testing and API testing turn up on one profile each. The tenth publishes eleven services and is the only profile that also carries manual testing, acceptance testing, compatibility testing, usability testing and localization testing, so the same service sits there inside a general quality assurance menu. For a buyer weighing a security boutique against a full-service testing vendor, the length and contents of a service list is the only signal published on that question.
Other axes these companies appear on
- Industry: Banking 9 of these 10 companies also stand there
- Industry: Healthcare 9 of these 10 companies also stand there
- Delivery location: Europe 7 of these 10 companies also stand there
- Industry: Ecommerce 6 of these 10 companies also stand there
Published by QA RatingPublished on September 3, 2026Updated on September 5, 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.