AI testing vendors in November 2026: what the verified records show
By AI Testing Vendors · 2026-11-09
At launch the directory holds verified records for every company that passed its rules. LLM applications and AI agents are the product types vendors state most often, and red teaming is the most stated testing service.
What was assessed
183 companies were assessed from seed research and discovery. 88 are published; 95 did not meet the publication rules and are listed with a reason code on the not-published page.
What vendors state they test
Each count is the number of published entries whose own AI testing page names the product type.
| AI product type | Published entries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| LLM applications | 61 | 69% |
| AI agents | 43 | 49% |
| Predictive ML models | 27 | 31% |
| Voice AI | 17 | 19% |
| Computer vision | 13 | 15% |
| Recommender and ranking systems | 11 | 13% |
| Autonomous and embedded AI | 5 | 6% |
| Generative media | 2 | 2% |
| Document AI | 1 | 1% |
LLM applications cover chat assistants, copilots and RAG search, the products most AI testing pages in this directory describe.
RAG: Retrieval-augmented generation: the model answers from documents fetched at query time.Which services they state
| Testing service | Published entries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Red teaming and adversarial testing | 56 | 64% |
| Bias and fairness audit | 44 | 50% |
| AI security penetration testing | 42 | 48% |
| LLM output evaluation | 36 | 41% |
| ML model validation | 31 | 35% |
| Production monitoring and drift testing | 31 | 35% |
| Training data and labeling QA | 25 | 28% |
| Performance and latency testing | 23 | 26% |
| Prompt and model regression testing | 17 | 19% |
| Compliance and conformity assessment support | 16 | 18% |
| RAG pipeline validation | 14 | 16% |
| Conversational flow testing | 11 | 13% |
The share column is the part of all published entries that state the service. A vendor can state several services, so the column does not add up to 100%.
What kind of companies they are
| Company type | Published entries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Pure-play QA company | 28 | 32% |
| Security firm with AI testing | 20 | 23% |
| IT services firm with a QA practice | 18 | 20% |
| Data and evaluation vendor | 12 | 14% |
| AI assurance and audit specialist | 4 | 5% |
| Crowdtesting platform | 3 | 3% |
Where they are headquartered
| HQ country | Published entries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 42 | 48% |
| India | 15 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Poland | 2 | 2% |
| Singapore | 2 | 2% |
| Armenia | 1 | 1% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 1% |
The coverage score at launch
The ten entries with the highest coverage score. The score counts stated AI product types, stated services and figures confirmed by two sources; it does not measure quality. The formula is on the methodology page.
| Rank | Company | Company type | HQ | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DeviQA | Pure-play QA company | Poland | 16 / 25 |
| 2 | Abstracta | Pure-play QA company | United States | 15 / 25 |
| 2 | ImpactQA | Pure-play QA company | United States | 15 / 25 |
| 4 | BetterQA | Pure-play QA company | Romania | 14 / 25 |
| 4 | QATestLab | Pure-play QA company | Cyprus | 14 / 25 |
| 4 | TestDevLab | Pure-play QA company | Latvia | 14 / 25 |
| 4 | TestingXperts | Pure-play QA company | United States | 14 / 25 |
| 4 | Testlio | Crowdtesting platform | United States | 14 / 25 |
| 4 | Testriq | Pure-play QA company | India | 14 / 25 |
| 10 | ITRex Group | IT services firm with a QA practice | United States | 13 / 25 |
Counts in this post are recomputed from the directory at every build; the title and summary describe the data on the post date.