If a company here also offers penetration testing, does the catalog explain how that engagement differs from its red teaming work?

No: the catalog keeps the two as separate service entries and does not compare them against each other. This page groups 24 companies under the red teaming line alone; whether a given company also lists penetration testing lives on a separate axis with its own composition, and neither entry records how the two would differ for that company in scope, duration or target. A buyer who needs to know how the two would actually differ in practice has to ask the vendor directly, since the catalog only names that a service is offered.

What can I check about a red-teaming vendor that has no case study or external reviews on record?

A country, a team size band and whatever applicability tags it earned still sit on the profile even without a project writeup or a review score. Ten of the 24 companies in this composition carry neither a confirmed certificate nor a case study, so for that group a certificate cannot stand in for the missing project description either, and the comparison narrows to team size, headquarters and tags. A confirmed certificate sits alongside a case study on the same profile for only six of the 24 companies here.

The list is ordered by verified review count. Does a company near the top have more satisfied clients than one further down?

Only across the first stretch of it. A review record exists for 10 of the 24 companies here, and the remaining 14 carry no count to sort on at all, so below those ten the order is decided entirely by the alphabetical tie-break printed above the table. Position on the lower two thirds of this page therefore reflects a company name rather than anything a client said, and reading the sequence as a ranking through to the bottom reads a sorting rule as a judgement.

Does this ranking show which companies have worked in my sector?

It shows the sectors a company serves, and on this page that record is nearly complete while barely separating anyone. Healthcare appears on 18 of the 24 profiles and banking on 16, so filtering by either leaves most of the composition standing. The sector entries that would narrow it are the smaller ones: energy reaches 8 profiles, and software as a service and insurance technology reach 6 each. A buyer whose sector is one of the two largest gains nothing here by filtering on it, and one whose sector sits further down the list narrows to a group small enough to read profile by profile.

Best Red teaming companies in 2026

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

24 testing companies in this catalog list Red teaming among their services. They are grouped below by what each is best suited for, in 7 groups. 11 of them hold a certificate confirmed by a register entry and 4 publish a rate card. Composition and order last changed on September 4, 2026.

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

The companies

Red teaming: 24 companies, grouped by what they are best suited for.
#	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	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	40
2	BreachLock	Not published	Not published	Not published	40
3	UNGUESS	Not published	1	Not published	27
4	Iterasec	Not published	1	Blended $50-99/hclutch.co	19
5	Bit Sentinel	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
6	Blaze Information Security	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
7	Char49	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
8	Cobalt	Not published	2	Not published	0
9	Devoteam Cyber Trust	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
10	Internet Security Auditors	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
11	S21sec	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
12	Tarlogic Security	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
13	Zerolynx	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
Nearshore for the USA At least one delivery location in Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.
14	Packetlabs	Not published	Not published	Not published	72
15	QASource	Salesforce, Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, Apache JMeter, Appium, Espresso, XCUITest	1	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	29
16	Software Secured	Not published	2	Not published	20
17	NetSPI	Not published	2	Not published	11
18	CyStack	Not published	Not published	Not published	1
10	Internet Security Auditors	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.
19	Qualysec	Not published	2	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	31
17	NetSPI	Not published	2	Not published	11
20	Bishop Fox	Not published	5	Not published	0
8	Cobalt	Not published	2	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.
15	QASource	Salesforce, Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, Apache JMeter, Appium, Espresso, XCUITest	1	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	29
Crowdtesting at scale The crowdtesting engagement model is offered, and a published tester pool of 10,000 people or more, with a source.
3	UNGUESS	Not published	1	Not published	27
Embedded team model The dedicated team engagement model is offered, and at least one published case study.
15	QASource	Salesforce, Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, Apache JMeter, Appium, Espresso, XCUITest	1	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	29
Performance engineering Performance testing is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a throughput or latency metric.
15	QASource	Salesforce, Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, Apache JMeter, Appium, Espresso, XCUITest	1	Blended $25-49/hclutch.co	29
Other companies in this axis No applicability tag met its criterion for these profiles.
21	Bugcrowd	Not published	2	Not published	0
22	Verichains	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
23	Viettel Cyber Security	Not published	Not published	Not published	0
24	VSEC	Not published	Not published	Not published	0

How applicability tags combine across this composition

Seven applicability tags describe this composition of 24 companies, and they combine unevenly. Nearshore for the EU applies to 13 companies, Nearshore for the USA to 6, Security focus to 4, and Automation first, Crowdtesting at scale, Embedded team model and Performance engineering each apply to exactly 1. Across the full composition, 15 of the 24 companies carry exactly one applicability tag, 4 carry none, 4 carry exactly two, and 1 carries four. QASource is the only company in this composition holding four applicability tags at once: Embedded team model, Automation first, Performance engineering and Nearshore for the USA. Internet Security Auditors is the only company holding both nearshore tags at once, one for a delivery location tied to the EU, the EEA or a listed nearshore country, the other for a delivery location in the Americas. Cobalt is the only company combining Nearshore for the EU with Security focus, and NetSPI is the only company combining Nearshore for the USA with Security focus.

Confirmed certificates and published rates rarely align

Certificates and rates follow separate patterns in this composition. 11 of the 24 companies carry at least one confirmed certificate, and 4 of the 24 publish an hourly rate. Only 1 of those 4 rate-publishing companies, Iterasec, also carries a confirmed certificate, so the other 3 publish a rate without one. A confirmed certificate and a published rate answer different questions about a vendor, one about verified process, the other about cost, and in this composition the two rarely sit on the same profile.

Headquarters countries split into a wide and a narrow band

Headquarters in this composition span 10 countries, and the spread is uneven. The United States accounts for 6 of the 24 companies, more than any other country. Vietnam and Spain each account for 4, Portugal for 3, Canada for 2, and Ukraine, India, Italy, Poland and Romania each account for 1. All 4 companies headquartered in Vietnam carry at most one applicability tag on this page: 3 of the 4 carry none, and the fourth carries Nearshore for the USA alone. That is a narrower tag spread than companies headquartered in Spain, where 1 of the 4 carries two applicability tags and the other 3 carry exactly one each.

Several fields stay unrecorded across this composition

Several fields recorded elsewhere in this catalog stay largely unfilled across this composition. Frameworks used are unrecorded for 23 of the 24 companies, and engagement models are unrecorded for 12 of the 24. Case studies are unrecorded for 15 of the 24, and external reviews for 14 of the 24. Industries served are the most complete of these fields here, unrecorded for only 4 of the 24. An unrecorded field means the company publishes no answer on that point, not that it lacks the capability.

How this ranking was put together

Membership is computed from the profile, not chosen: companies appear here when they list Red teaming 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.
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.
Automation first: Test automation is offered as a service, and at least one published case study reports a coverage or regression time metric.
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.
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

If a company here also offers penetration testing, does the catalog explain how that engagement differs from its red teaming work?: No: the catalog keeps the two as separate service entries and does not compare them against each other. This page groups 24 companies under the red teaming line alone; whether a given company also lists penetration testing lives on a separate axis with its own composition, and neither entry records how the two would differ for that company in scope, duration or target. A buyer who needs to know how the two would actually differ in practice has to ask the vendor directly, since the catalog only names that a service is offered.
What can I check about a red-teaming vendor that has no case study or external reviews on record?: A country, a team size band and whatever applicability tags it earned still sit on the profile even without a project writeup or a review score. Ten of the 24 companies in this composition carry neither a confirmed certificate nor a case study, so for that group a certificate cannot stand in for the missing project description either, and the comparison narrows to team size, headquarters and tags. A confirmed certificate sits alongside a case study on the same profile for only six of the 24 companies here.
The list is ordered by verified review count. Does a company near the top have more satisfied clients than one further down?: Only across the first stretch of it. A review record exists for 10 of the 24 companies here, and the remaining 14 carry no count to sort on at all, so below those ten the order is decided entirely by the alphabetical tie-break printed above the table. Position on the lower two thirds of this page therefore reflects a company name rather than anything a client said, and reading the sequence as a ranking through to the bottom reads a sorting rule as a judgement.
Does this ranking show which companies have worked in my sector?: It shows the sectors a company serves, and on this page that record is nearly complete while barely separating anyone. Healthcare appears on 18 of the 24 profiles and banking on 16, so filtering by either leaves most of the composition standing. The sector entries that would narrow it are the smaller ones: energy reaches 8 profiles, and software as a service and insurance technology reach 6 each. A buyer whose sector is one of the two largest gains nothing here by filtering on it, and one whose sector sits further down the list narrows to a group small enough to read profile by profile.

Other axes these companies appear on

Industry: Healthcare 18 of these 24 companies also stand there
Industry: Banking 16 of these 24 companies also stand there
Delivery location: Europe 15 of these 24 companies also stand there
Delivery proximity: nearshore for a buyer in the EU 13 of these 24 companies also stand there

How to choose a vendor on this axis

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.