QA Consulting and Software Quality Audit whose findings you own, whoever closes them.

A findings report and a roadmap, then a working session where we walk your team through both. The report covers workflow, coverage, automation readiness and release gates, every gap ranked by risk against effort with the reasoning shown, so you can see why each fix sits where it does. The roadmap is written for your own team to execute. Where an engagement goes further than the read, we build the artifacts too: on an independent QA engagement for a real estate platform, an impartial analysis of the client's QA roadmap turned into a QA workflow, a tailored Test Cases System, automation on top of it, and a Testing Roadmap their own team applies at every stage.

Against the evidence, and against your own risk. We take what your process says happens and check it against what your tracker, your pipelines, your test cases and your release records actually show, because that gap is the one thing the people inside it cannot measure. Ranking is the second half. A finding is high-risk when the failure behind it would cost your business real money, and that judgment is yours: we bring the evidence and the reasoning for each position, and you can move a finding up or down knowing what it costs. There is no maturity score we sell you and no scale you are graded on.

QA consulting and a software quality audit are the same purchase here: an independent assessment of how you build quality in, ranked findings and a roadmap. Buyers search for it as quality assurance consulting, QA consulting services, software quality consulting and QA audit services, and all of those land on this page. QA services is a different purchase: somebody running the testing for you, release after release. That is full-cycle software testing and QA. If the strategy is fine and the suites are the bottleneck, it is QA and test automation.

The number follows the reading, because the same audit costs different money depending on how much there is to read. What moves it: how many products, teams and repositories are in scope, how much automation already exists, and whether the answer has to hold up in a data room. A full read is quoted per project, outcome based. A focused read on one path is billed hourly, quoted per project. If it turns into ongoing delivery, that is team extension, billed monthly per team member. You see the number before you commit, and there is no minimum engagement period.

The duration depends on what already exists. One product with written acceptance criteria, a staging environment and a test-case repository moves far faster than a multi-team estate where the coverage lives in people's heads. You hear about the risky gaps as we find them, before the report is finished. Scope and schedule are agreed before the audit starts.

No, and that would defeat the point: the audit is about your setup, not a recommended one. We read your tracker, your CI pipelines, your test repositories and your release process where they sit, and a finding that starts with "first migrate to" is one we have to justify twice. On one live SaaS platform the fix was version control in Git plus deployment automation alongside the test suite, which took release time from weeks to hours. On a seven-market e-commerce re-platforming it meant testing across Shopify, a Microsoft Dynamics ERP and the middleware between them, because the defects that hurt live between systems rather than inside one.

Four situations, all the same shape: somebody outside is about to ask a question. A business platform after a legacy refactor, where you need evidence the rebuild is stable and performs. A company going for ISO certification, where the QA process and its documentation have to hold up under examination. A company approaching an M&A, where the audit protects the software going into diligence; if you need the wider technical read rather than the quality one, that is technology consulting and advisory. And a startup at exit stage, where a buyer will examine your codebase whether or not you have. The cheapest time to find a coverage gap is before somebody else finds it: an audit six months before a data room is a cheap fix, while the same findings surfaced by the buyer's diligence team are a price negotiation.

Yes, we get you ready for the audit, and the certificate itself comes from an accredited body, as does a signed conformity assessment against a safety-critical standard such as IEC 62304 or DO-178C. unicrew holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015 itself, renewed through a multi-stage audit with Quay Audit UK, so the standard we audit you against is one we live under. Our QA engineers are ISTQB certified.

Whatever you run, plus the classes of tooling a mature setup usually has. Test automation: TestCafe, Selenium, JUnit, TestNG. Performance: JMeter, LoadRunner. Security: OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite. CI and deployment: Jenkins, GitLab CI. Manual: exploratory testing, with test case management in TestRail. Usability: UsabilityHub, UserTesting, and the Nielsen heuristics method. We are not tied to any of them. On a platform where we owned the QA we built the automation on TestCafe, which runs browser tests in JavaScript or TypeScript across multiple browsers.

Three checks separate an audit you can act on from a report you file, and we answer all three. Ask what one finding actually looks like: a rank, the evidence behind it and the reasoning that put it there is something you can argue with, where a severity label on its own is not. Ask what the assessor's own certification covers, because judgment is the thing you are buying: ours is ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, renewed through a multi-stage audit with Quay Audit UK, and our QA engineers are ISTQB certified. And ask whether the people writing the findings are in-house, which decides whether whoever ranked your gaps is still there for the re-audit: ours come from 100+ senior in-house engineers across six countries. Every client quoted on this page links to their own Clutch review below, so you can read each interview in full.

Yes, whenever you want us to, as a separate decision from the audit. The engagement ends with a plan your own team can execute, and running it yourselves is the outcome we design for. If you do want help afterwards, it is full-cycle software testing and QA, QA and test automation or AI QA and LLM evaluation, depending on which surface is untested. If you would rather we simply confirm the work landed, we re-audit after it ships.