Skip to content
Security QA Vendors

Ranking / Vendor profile

ImpactQA

Overall score
22.1 / 100, rank 8 of 12
Headquarters
Not confirmed
Headcount range
Not confirmed by two sources
QA-only company
Yes, QA and testing only [e-0043]
Evidence verified on
2026-11-11

Visit website

Not ideal for

Situations where the published evidence does not support this vendor. Each line links to its source.
  • Buyers who need a vendor with several documented security-product QA cases: one case study covers one identity and access management client. [e-0041]
  • Buyers who need performance or compatibility testing on a security product: the one case describes automation only. [e-0041]
  • Buyers who need a stated engagement length or team size: the case gives neither. [e-0041]

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.
  1. e-0041

    case-studyCase study for Exostar, identity and access management

    impactqa.com · undated · B single source · verified 2026-11-11

    Identity and access management; tests: automation; client: Exostar; vendor-reported metric: Reduce QA Test Cycle by 60%

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. 1 Security-product evidence depth weight 204.0 / 10

    One verified security-product QA item. Of these, one names the client, zero state team size or duration and one states a metric. [e-0041]

  2. 2 Product-class coverage weight 122.0 / 10

    One product class evidenced: Identity and access management. [e-0041]

  3. 3 Test-type depth weight 152.0 / 10

    One test type evidenced on security products: automation. [e-0041]

  4. 4 Engagement longevity weight 100.0 / 10

    No engagement length with a security vendor is stated in the verified evidence.

  5. 5 Third-party review signal weight 120.0 / 10

    No verified Clutch, GoodFirms or G2 review of security-product QA work dated within 60 months.

  6. 6 Vendor's own security posture weight 100.0 / 10

    No certificate reference, SOC 2 statement, data-handling statement or security page found.

  7. 7 Team scale and specialisation weight 93.0 / 10

    Headcount not confirmed by two consistent sources, 0 points; QA-only company, 3 points; no dedicated security-product QA page, 0 points. [e-0043]

  8. 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-0042][e-0044]

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 classEvidence items
Endpoint protection and EDR0, no evidence
SIEM, XDR and detection platforms0, no evidence
Identity and access management1
Network security0, no evidence
Email and web security0, no evidence
Data protection and backup0, no evidence
Vulnerability and exposure management0, no evidence
SOAR and incident response0, no evidence
Cryptography and key management0, no evidence
Mobile and application security products0, no evidence

Test types evidenced on security products: automation. [e-0041]

  1. 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. 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
$25 to $49 / hr [e-0042]
Leadership
Not published with profiles
QA process page
Not published
Team locations
Noida, India; Chennai, India; Plano, US [e-0044]

Compare and browse

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

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.