Ranking / Vendor profile

TestArmy

Overall score: 19.4 / 100, rank 10 of 12
Headquarters: Wroclaw, Poland [e-0056]
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 QA for endpoint, SIEM, network or other classes beyond encrypted messaging: no published case or review covers them. [e-0054]
Buyers who need automation, API, performance or compatibility testing of a security product: the only security-product QA review describes exploratory testing. [e-0054]
Buyers who need an engagement over 12 months on a security product: no such engagement is evidenced. [e-0054]

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-0054
reviewClutch review by Password Crypt ApS, cryptography and key management
clutch.co · 2020-03-24 · C indirect · verified 2026-11-11
Cryptography and key management; tests: functional; client: Password Crypt ApS

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
One verified security-product QA item, one of them older than 60 months and counted at half. Of these, one names the client, zero state team size or duration and zero state a metric. [e-0054]
2 Product-class coverage weight 122.0 / 10
One product class evidenced: Cryptography and key management. [e-0054]
3 Test-type depth weight 152.0 / 10
One test type evidenced on security products: functional. [e-0054]
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 120.0 / 10
No verified Clutch, GoodFirms or G2 review of security-product QA work dated within 60 months.
6 Vendor's own security posture weight 100.0 / 10
ISO 27001 is claimed without a certificate number or registry link, which scores zero under the rule. [e-0056]
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-0056]

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	1
Mobile and application security products	0, no evidence

Test types evidenced on security products: functional. [e-0054]

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: Claimed, certificate reference not published [e-0056]
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: $50 to $99 / hr [e-0056]
Leadership: Not published with profiles
QA process page: Not published
Team locations: Wroclaw, Poland [e-0056]

Compare and browse

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

ImpactQA vs TestArmy ImpactQA overall 22.1
AgileEngine vs TestArmy AgileEngine overall 21.4
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.