DEBUG: PAGE=domain, TITLE=Property & Casualty,ID=1445,TEMPLATE=subprogram
toggle expanded view
programcode = HAIPAC
programid = 164
database = t
alerts = t
neat = t
vendors = t
forecasting = t
confidence = f
definitions = t

Search within: Property & Casualty:

Access our analyst expertise:

Only NelsonHall clients who are logged in have access to our analysts and advisors for their expert advice and opinion.

To find out more about how NelsonHall's analysts and sourcing advisors can assist you with your strategy and engagements, please contact our sales department here.

Subscribe to blogs & alerts:

manage email alerts using the form below, in order to be notified via email whenever we publish new content:

has Database = t

Contracts Database

for Property & Casualty

Track the pattern of service adoption by monitoring Property & Casualty contract awards by your peers. Identify who are the successful vendors this industry now. Updated monthly!

These documents are available to logged in clients that have purchased access to this program.

has Confidence = f -- IGNORED

EPAM Systems - Crowdtesting

Vendor Analysis

by Dominique Raviart

published on Dec 09, 2020

Access to this report is restricted to logged in clients with access. Login to get full access

Report Overview:

This NelsonHall assessment analyzes EPAM Systems' offerings and capabilities in Crowdtesting

Who is this Report for:

NelsonHall's crowdtesting profile on EPAM/test IO is a comprehensive assessment of EPAM’s offerings and capabilities, designed for:

  • Sourcing managers monitoring the capabilities of existing suppliers of application services, quality assurance/testing services and crowdtesting and identifying vendor suitability for RFPs
  • Vendor marketing, sales, and business managers looking to benchmark themselves against their peers
  • Financial analysts and investors specializing in the IT services sector.

Scope of this Report:

The report provides a comprehensive and objective analysis of EPAM/test IO’s crowdtesting service offerings and capabilities, and market and financial strengths, including:

  • Identification of the company’s strategy, emphasis, and new developments
  • Analysis of the company’s strengths, weaknesses, and outlook
  • Revenue estimates
  • Analysis of the profile of the company’s customer base including the company’s targeting strategy and examples of current contracts
  • Analysis of the company’s offerings and key service components
  • Analysis of the company’s delivery organization including the location of delivery locations.

Key Findings & Highlights:

This NelsonHall vendor assessment analyzes EPAM/test IO’s offerings and capabilities in crowdtesting.

EPAM acquired test IO, a crowdtesting pure-play, in April 2019. test IO was founded in 2011 and currently has ~200 clients, many in the retail, media, and travel industries, with a sweet spot around customer-facing applications such as mobile apps and websites.

test IO has focused on functional testing (along with usability testing), targeting agile projects in recent years. The company offered mostly guided exploratory testing, i.e., exploratory testing with high-level instructions.

With its acquisition, test IO has significantly changed its positioning and service portfolio. The company now positions crowdtesting for manual functional testing activities, helping clients transition over time to automation, thanks to EPAM's QA practice.

Test IO has also expanded its service portfolio to newer areas such as performance testing, where it bundles its service with those of EPAM.

Finally, test IO has helped to create within EPAM an internal crowd. test IO uses the EPAM internal crowd for activities ranging from functional automation to performance engineering and game testing. test IO highlights that EPAM brings specialists that it couldn't have accessed alone. The company can now mine its clients much more than in the past. With specific accounts, it has more than tripled the amount of work it did. Also, EPAM has brought a QA consulting expertise for helping clients define their continuous testing strategies that test IO did not have.

Login to get full access:

close