Methodology / Not published
Candidates and pages not published
This list is public so that a missing vendor can be checked against a reason and a source. Seven candidates failed the scope gate in the methodology; a vendor can ask for a re-check by sending a source to hello@cybersecurityqavendors.com.
Candidates that failed the scope gate
| Candidate | Condition | Reason | Source checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| BairesDev | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | No readable case or verified review shows QA work on a security product. The vendor site returned HTTP 403 to every automated fetch. The Clutch profile shows no cybersecurity-tagged review, and the only other QA case found (Thomson Reuters) is for a non-security client. | clutch.co/profile/bairesdev |
| Cigniti Technologies | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | The only candidate case (a global mobile security, privacy and productivity software company) is a title-only listing on casestudies.com with no test types, scope or outcome, the Clutch profile shows no cybersecurity-tagged reviews, and the vendor's own security pages describe security testing services, not QA of security products. | www.casestudies.com/company/cigniti-technologies/case-study/global-mobile-security-privacy-and-productivity-software-company-customer-case-study |
| eInfochips | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | No security-product QA claim could be verified: the cited identity-management QA case pages returned HTTP 403 to automated access. A re-check can be requested with a reachable copy of the case. | www.einfochips.com/resources/success-stories/qa-for-identity-management-product-suite/ |
| Experis (ManpowerGroup) | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | The only IAM case study describes an unnamed Fortune 100 software company and does not say the IAM product line is sold to others as a security product; no other security-product QA case or cybersecurity-tagged review was found. | www.experis.com/insights/articles/2021/03/13/case-study---iam_managed_testing |
| SDG Corporation | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | Its QA case studies cover a bank, a healthcare company and a diversified conglomerate using identity and security systems, none of which is a security-product company, and no security-product QA case or cybersecurity-tagged review was found. | www.sdgc.com/?p=11864 |
| TestingXperts | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | No case study or review found describing QA or testing work on a client's security product; its security pages describe testing of client applications and its own Tx-SECURE service. | www.testingxperts.com/services/security-testing/ |
| Zuci Systems | 1: No verifiable security-product QA evidence | The only candidate security-product QA case (IAM regression suite) could not be opened on the live site, the Clutch profile shows 0 reviews, and the other security cases found are penetration testing for fintech clients, which is excluded. | clutch.co/profile/zuci-systems |
Passed the gate but outside the ranking cap
The ranking shows 12 vendors, the cap set in the site configuration so that the table stays a shortlist. These passed the gate and were scored, but ranked below the cap: Qualitest (10.0). Their scores are in the data download.
Pages not published
Facet and compare pages below their threshold are not built. A page appears here instead.
| Route | Reason |
|---|---|
| /best-for/siem-xdr/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/network/ | 1 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/email-web/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/data-protection/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/vuln-mgmt/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/soar-ir/ | 1 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/crypto/ | 1 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/mobile-security/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/performance-testing/ | 2 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /best-for/detection-regression/ | 0 ranked vendor(s) with verified evidence; threshold is 3 |
| /for/startups/ | The locked methodology defines no evidence field for client company size, so membership cannot be computed from evidence |
| /for/enterprise/ | The locked methodology defines no evidence field for client company size, so membership cannot be computed from evidence |
| /compare/apriorit-vs-testarmy/ | outside the cap of 12 pairs |
| /compare/indium-software-vs-testarmy/ | outside the cap of 12 pairs |
| /compare/apriorit-vs-indium-software/ | outside the cap of 12 pairs |
Who is excluded by design
Efficacy labs that certify detection rates are a different service class; see QA vendors vs efficacy labs.
Penetration testing for a client that is not a security product company never counts as evidence, whatever the vendor calls it. The checks a buyer can run are in the RFP questions guide.
Corrections and re-checks are dated in the changelog. The current ranking is on the home page.