Ranking / Vendor profile

Apriorit

Overall score: 17.6 / 100, rank 11 of 12
Headquarters: Lynn, US [e-0067]
Headcount range: Not confirmed by two sources
QA-only company: Not confirmed
Evidence verified on: 2026-11-11

Not ideal for

Situations where the published evidence does not support this vendor. Each line links to its source.

Buyers who need a named security product class: no published case or review names the product type of the QA client. [e-0062][e-0063]
Buyers who need specific test types on a security product: the two security-product sources describe QA services and impact analysis but name no test type from the methodology list. [e-0062][e-0063]
Buyers who need a certificate reference: no ISO 27001 or SOC 2 record was reachable. [e-0067]

Security-product QA evidence

Case studies and reviews that describe QA work on a product whose primary purpose is security. Penetration testing for other clients is excluded under the methodology.

e-0062
case-studyCase study
casestudies.com · undated · C indirect · verified 2026-11-11
team: 3 testers; client not named
e-0063
reviewClutch review
clutch.co · 2023-12-05 · B single source · verified 2026-11-11
client not named

Score breakdown

Eight dimensions, each scored 0 to 10 by the frozen rules and multiplied by its weight. Bars are drawn from data/scores.json.

1 Security-product evidence depth weight 204.0 / 10
Two verified security-product QA items. Of these, zero name the client, one states team size or duration and zero state a metric. [e-0062][e-0063]
2 Product-class coverage weight 120.0 / 10
No product class is named in the verified security-product evidence.
3 Test-type depth weight 150.0 / 10
No test type is evidenced on a security product.
4 Engagement longevity weight 100.0 / 10
No engagement length with a security vendor is stated in the verified evidence.
5 Third-party review signal weight 123.0 / 10
One verified platform review of security-product QA work within 60 months; newest dated 2023-12-05. [e-0063]
6 Vendor's own security posture weight 100.0 / 10
No certificate reference, SOC 2 statement, data-handling statement or security page found.
7 Team scale and specialisation weight 90.0 / 10
Headcount not confirmed by two consistent sources, 0 points; not QA-only, 0 points; no dedicated security-product QA page, 0 points.
8 Transparency weight 125.0 / 10
Two of four items present: public rate, team locations; missing: named leadership with profiles, published QA process page. [e-0067]

Product classes covered

Verified security-product QA items per class. A class counts only when the source names the product type, for example EDR¹ for endpoint or SIEM² for detection platforms.

Product class	Evidence items
Endpoint protection and EDR	0, no evidence
SIEM, XDR and detection platforms	0, no evidence
Identity and access management	0, no evidence
Network security	0, no evidence
Email and web security	0, no evidence
Data protection and backup	0, no evidence
Vulnerability and exposure management	0, no evidence
SOAR and incident response	0, no evidence
Cryptography and key management	0, no evidence
Mobile and application security products	0, no evidence

1 EDR: Software that watches laptops, servers and phones for suspicious behavior, records what it sees, and alerts administrators so they can investigate and respond. Source
2 SIEM: A system that collects log data from many sources into one place so security teams can search it, correlate events and spot attacks. Source

Vendor's own security posture

Controls a security vendor usually asks of a QA partner that will handle builds and test data.

ISO 27001: Not published
SOC 2: Not published
Test-data handling: Not published
Security page or officer: Not published

Transparency

The four items scored in dimension 8 of the methodology.

Public rate: $100 to $149 / hr [e-0067]
Leadership: Not published with profiles
QA process page: Not published
Team locations: Lynn, US; Poznan, Poland; Dnipro, Ukraine; Nicosia, Cyprus [e-0067]

Compare and browse

The two vendors nearest by overall score, and the facet pages that list this vendor.

North America facet page
Europe facet page
RFP questions to send this vendor
How to shortlist a QA vendor for a security product
Full ranking of 12 vendors

Logged corrections: changelog. Raw evidence: data download.

Scores are computed from publicly available evidence as of the verifiedOn date on each item. They describe published evidence, not service quality. Re-verify with the vendor before contracting.