Reviewed by

QA and Testing Services

Pharos Production delivers comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) and Software Testing services that catch defects before your users do.

  • 90+ engineers
  • 28 industries
  • 13+ years in business
96 reviews 138 reviews 11 reviews 54 reviews 19 reviews 5.0 318+ verified reviews

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]

SOC 2 Type II GDPR ISO 27001 NDA Protected

Aligned with these frameworks. Audit reports and certifications available on request.

Reviewed and updated
Last reviewed July 5, 2026 by Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO. Content reflects Pharos Production delivery data as of the review date. Editorial policy.
Dmytro Nasyrov - Founder and CTO of Pharos Production

Reviewed by Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO

23+ years in custom software development. Led 110+ projects across FinTech, healthcare, Web3 and enterprise, ISO 27001-aligned team.

What is quality assurance and software testing?

Quality assurance and software testing is the engineering discipline of verifying that software meets requirements, performs reliably under realistic load and handles failure modes gracefully before reaching users. It covers manual testing (exploratory, usability, UAT), automation (unit, integration, E2E, contract), performance and load testing, security testing, accessibility testing, mobile device testing, API contract testing and regression suites tied to CI/CD pipelines. Production QA requires defect leakage metrics, test pyramid discipline, automation coverage targets, flaky test management and clear escalation paths for release blockers. Pharos has run QA engagements across FinTech, healthcare, blockchain, high-load consumer and SaaS platforms since 2015.
Authoritative citations 12 sources
  1. DORA State of DevOps Report The Google DORA State of DevOps annual report defines the four key software delivery metrics (deployment frequency, lead time for changes, mean time to restore, change failure rate) that we instrument on every production engagement to benchmark delivery performance. dora.dev
  2. Stack Overflow Developer Survey The Stack Overflow Developer Survey documents language, framework, database and tooling adoption across tens of thousands of engineers annually, and we use the trend lines to validate stack choices against hiring pool depth for each client. survey.stackoverflow.co
  3. ThoughtWorks Technology Radar The ThoughtWorks Technology Radar tracks tools, platforms, techniques and languages across adopt, trial, assess and hold rings twice yearly, and is a cross-check we use to validate architectural recommendations against industry consensus. thoughtworks.com
  4. Google SRE Book The Google SRE book codifies service-level objectives, error budgets, incident response and postmortem culture that our production readiness gates adopt directly when handing over a platform to a client operations team. sre.google
  5. Martin Fowler bliki Martin Fowler's bliki is the most cited reference for enterprise architecture patterns including microservices, strangler fig, CQRS, event sourcing and refactoring, which shapes how we describe and implement architecture decisions in ADRs on every client engagement. martinfowler.com
  6. Gartner Custom Application Services Magic Quadrant Gartner publishes multiple Magic Quadrant reports covering custom application services, digital engineering and outsourced development that identify market leaders, completeness of vision and niche specialists across the global software services industry. gartner.com
  7. ISO 27001 Information Security Standard ISO 27001:2022 defines the internationally recognized information security management system requirements that Pharos Production operates under, shaping the control framework we inherit and extend for client software engagements. iso.org
  8. OWASP Top 10 The OWASP Top 10 ranks the highest-impact web application security risks and is the single most cited threat reference for application security programs, which every Pharos build is reviewed against before production release. owasp.org
  9. NIST Secure Software Development Framework NIST SSDF SP 800-218 defines secure development practices including threat modelling, SBOM generation, vulnerability disclosure and supply chain controls, which we treat as the baseline Software Development Lifecycle checklist on every client engagement. csrc.nist.gov
  10. CNCF Cloud Native Landscape The CNCF Cloud Native Landscape maps the full cloud-native ecosystem across orchestration, runtime, observability, security and database categories, useful reference material we consult when validating platform choices for client Kubernetes and service mesh engagements. landscape.cncf.io
  11. Accelerate by Forsgren, Humble, Kim Accelerate distills the multi-year DORA research program into the book-length case for DevOps practices correlated with high-performance software delivery, and is the single most cited academic reference for the delivery metrics we ship inside every client engagement. itrevolution.com
  12. IEEE SWEBOK The IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge codifies the professional knowledge areas covering requirements, design, construction, testing, maintenance, configuration management and engineering economics that underpin every professional software services engagement. computer.org
What we do not do
  • Projects without a defined quality bar or release criteria
  • Manual-only QA where automation would pay back in 3 months
  • Compliance-theater QA without remediation budget
  • QA engagements without a client-side product owner answering requirements questions

Quality assurance and testing at Pharos Production at a glance

  • QA engagements: 30+ formal QA engagements since 2015 across FinTech, healthcare, blockchain, high-load consumer and SaaS
  • Test types: Unit, integration, E2E, contract, performance/load, security (SAST/DAST), accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), mobile device matrix
  • Stack: Jest, Vitest, Playwright, Cypress, JUnit, pytest, Go testing, k6, Gatling, Burp Suite, axe-core, Firebase Test Lab, BrowserStack, Detox, Maestro
  • CI/CD integration: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, CircleCI, Jenkins; quarantine-then-fix flake policy; per-PR regression on critical paths
  • Pricing: QA MVP $20,000-$60,000; full test platform $60,000-$180,000+; embedded QA engineers from $8,000/month
  • Timeline: Discovery 1-2 weeks; automation MVP 4-8 weeks; full test platform 3-6 months
  • Standards: Test pyramid discipline, defect leakage < 2%, flake rate < 1%, WCAG 2.1 AA, OWASP top-10 coverage
  • Honest scope: We recommend the lightest engagement that fits and decline compliance-theater QA

In-house QA vs outsourced QA partner: which is better?

In-house QA gives you continuous context, domain knowledge and deep product ownership. Outsourced QA partners give you specialized tooling, cross-industry experience and surge capacity for releases. According to the 2024 World Quality Report, 67% of growth-stage companies use a hybrid model: a small in-house QA team for continuous coverage plus an outsourced partner for specialized work (performance, security, accessibility, mobile device matrix).

Factor In-house QA Outsourced QA partner
Domain knowledge Deep; grows with the product over years Shallow at first; deepens over the engagement
Specialized skills Limited to who you can hire Specialists across perf, security, accessibility, mobile
Ramp time 4-12 weeks for a new QA hire to be productive 1-2 weeks for Pharos engineers to ramp on the product
Cost model Fixed salary + benefits ($80K-$180K per QA engineer) Time-and-materials or monthly retainer; scales with needs
Tooling You invest in licenses, infrastructure, training Partner brings mature tooling stack amortized across clients
Surge capacity Hard to scale up for releases; backlog risk Scale up and down as release cadence demands
Quality ownership Clear: the in-house team owns it Shared: client owns quality bar, partner owns execution
Best combination Day-to-day coverage on active product work Specialized audits, release surges, skills transfer

How we structure QA engagements

QA engagements follow Pharos Verified Delivery with test-specific gates: discovery scopes test pyramid, automation coverage targets and CI/CD integration; build delivers test suites at the appropriate level (unit → integration → E2E); production readiness covers flaky test management, defect leakage metrics and release criteria; support includes quarterly automation reviews and test maintenance.

Pharos Verified Delivery 4-phase methodology with typical durations and deliverables
  1. Phase 01 / 04

    Paid Discovery

    2-4 weeks
    • Technical validation
    • Architecture proposal
    • Scope refined estimate
    82% on-schedule with discovery
  2. Phase 02 / 04

    Iterative Build

    2-week sprints
    • Working demos every sprint
    • CTO review at milestones
    • ADRs documented
    Transparent progress tracking
  3. Phase 03 / 04

    Production Readiness

    • Monitoring and alerting
    • Security audit Pen test
    • Runbooks and rollback
    ISO 27001 aligned
  4. Phase 04 / 04

    Support

    Ongoing
    • Security patches
    • Performance tuning
    • 4h SLA response
    Continuous improvement

Pharos Verified Delivery applied to 110+ production applications since 2013

QA wins from real projects

Three QA engagements with test pyramid changes that moved defect-escape and release-cycle numbers.

Test automation rollout Q4 2024 · FinTech scale-up, EU
Before

All testing was manual. Regression cycle took 6 days before each release. Engineering team avoided risky changes between releases. Defect escape rate to production 12%.

After

Pyramid-balanced automation suite: 78% unit + 18% integration + 4% E2E. Regression cycle down to 38 minutes. Defect escape rate dropped to 1.4%. Release cadence shifted from biweekly to 2-3 times per week.

We rebuilt the test pyramid from the wrong end up. The existing "automation" was 95% slow Selenium tests against the full stack. We moved coverage to the unit layer first, then integration, then kept only 12 E2E tests for the critical user journey. Speed and reliability both improved together.

Flaky test cleanup Q1 2025 · SaaS platform, US
Before

14% of CI runs failed on flaky tests. Engineers ignored CI failures or disabled tests to unblock. Test trust was zero. Real regressions leaked to production.

After

Quarantine-then-fix policy: flaky tests moved to a separate quarantine suite, root-caused within 3 days or deleted. Flake rate dropped to 0.3%. Test trust restored; engineers actually read CI output again.

The fix was cultural, not technical. We instrumented flake detection per test, auto-quarantined any test that failed + passed on rerun and wrote the quarantine rule into the CI config. No flake got to block a PR twice. The 3-day root-cause window forced real fixes.

Load test harness Q2 2025 · Sportsbook platform, global
Before

Load testing was a pre-launch event, not an ongoing practice. Peak betting windows caused cascading timeouts. No early warning.

After

k6 + Grafana load test harness running nightly against staging. Targets: 50,000 concurrent users, p99 latency < 200ms. Zero peak-window incidents in the 4 months since adoption. Engineering has daily visibility into regression before production.

The key move was making load testing continuous, not eventual. Nightly runs catch regressions within 24 hours; the test scenarios are version-controlled alongside the code, so load expectations travel with the features they test.

Client names anonymized under NDA. Full case studies at /cases/.

When a full QA engagement is not the answer

We decline roughly 30% of RFPs we receive. Forcing a bad fit costs both sides 3-6 months and damages outcomes. Here is how we think about scope:

Projects we decline
  • Projects without a defined quality bar or release criteria
  • Manual-only QA where automation would pay back in 3 months
  • Compliance-theater QA without remediation budget
  • QA without a client-side product owner answering requirements questions
  • "Automate everything" projects without a test pyramid plan
We recommend the right depth of QA

Not every project needs a full QA team. Sometimes a unit test culture and a small E2E smoke suite is the right level of investment. Sometimes a 2-week test automation bootcamp transfers skills to the client team and exits. We start by understanding the actual quality problem and recommend the appropriate depth. We have closed engagements with "your unit tests are good, the gap is a 6-test E2E smoke suite" as the whole deliverable.

Pharos Production QA and testing portfolio observations

Observations from 26 QA engagements delivered 2020-2026 across FinTech, healthcare, SaaS and e-commerce.

  • Teams with over 80 percent unit coverage plus contract tests had 3.4x lower production defect rate than teams with unit-only coverage in matched cohorts.

  • Flake-rate budgets under 1 percent correlated with over 90 percent engineer confidence in suite signal; budgets over 3 percent correlated with engineers disabling or ignoring failures.

  • Ephemeral per-PR environments reduced PR merge time by 38 percent on average across 8 projects that adopted them.

  • Teams of 2 to 4 QA engineers plus test-engineering platform support sustained full coverage across 50-plus service codebases in our portfolio.

Observations reflect the Pharos Production QA portfolio 2020-2026 and do not generalise beyond surveyed engagements.

QA and testing outlook 2026-2027

QA in 2026 has shifted from end-of-pipeline gate to continuous capability. Contract testing, in-IDE test generation and production-first observability (canary analysis, synthetic monitoring) handle most of what manual QA used to catch. AI-assisted test authoring is becoming standard for regression coverage; exploratory testing remains human-driven.

  • DORA 2024 confirms automated testing is the single highest-correlated capability with elite delivery performance[1].

  • ThoughtWorks Radar 2024 elevates contract testing, test-data management and ephemeral environments to "Adopt"[3].

  • OWASP ASVS plus NIST SSDF mandate security test coverage (SAST, DAST, dependency audit) gating release pipelines for regulated software[8][9].

  • IEEE SWEBOK Chapter 5 (Testing) remains the authoritative professional reference for verification and validation practice[12].

How to evaluate a QA engagement before production gate

Before treating QA sign-off as a release condition, run this 8-point maturity audit. QA practice below 6 of 8 passing produces either late-stage defects or release delays in our tracked cohort.

  1. Unit test coverage

    Over 80 percent line coverage on business logic; coverage gates in CI block regression[11].

  2. Contract test coverage

    All external service boundaries covered by consumer-driven contract tests; contract-breaking changes surface in CI[3].

  3. End-to-end tests

    Critical user flows covered by automated E2E tests running in CI plus nightly; flakiness under 1 percent per week.

  4. Security testing

    SAST, DAST and dependency audit integrated in CI; OWASP Top 10 mitigations mapped per release[8].

  5. Performance testing

    Load and soak tests run at least weekly; regression alerts on P95 latency delta over 10 percent.

  6. Ephemeral environments

    Per-PR ephemeral environments available; E2E tests run in environment parity with production.

  7. Exploratory testing

    Time-boxed human exploratory sessions each release; defect reports feed regression suite.

  8. Production observability

    Synthetic monitoring, error rate and SLO dashboards active; QA loop closed with production signal.

QA practices below 6 of 8 typically have 3x higher escape defects to production than full-coverage practices in matched teams.

Lesson from production: the flaky test tax

A SaaS customer had 2,400 E2E tests in 2023 with 18 percent weekly flake rate. Engineering disabled failing tests rather than fixing them; the suite became meaningless, and 4 production incidents in 6 months traced to scenarios the disabled tests had originally covered. Root cause: flake rate over 3 percent destroys signal-to-noise; engineers disabled as a coping mechanism. We declared flake-rate bankruptcy: quarantined the flaky 18 percent, rebuilt the critical 15 percent with stronger fixtures and deterministic test data and set a flake budget of 1 percent beyond which the suite blocks merges. Six months later, suite is 1,800 tests with 0.7 percent flake rate, and production incidents traceable to E2E gaps dropped to zero. The lesson: a flaky test suite is worse than no test suite because it teaches engineers to ignore signal.

How defect leakage and flake rates are measured
QA metrics counted: production engagements with defect leakage measurements and automation coverage against the test pyramid. Regression cycle times measured against client-reported pre-engagement baselines. Flake rates measured from actual CI statistics, not estimates. Last reviewed: July 2026. Editorial policy.
Scope and testing limits
Pharos Production provides QA and testing services. Testing reduces defect risk but cannot eliminate it. Compliance certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001) are issued by accredited auditors based on the systems we deliver, not by Pharos.

Published record

Published Pharos research

Technical articles, comparison guides and methodology deep-dives we write from our own delivery experience.

Platforms we work with

Trusted by Coinbase, Consensys, Core Scientific, MicroStrategy, Gate.io and 10+ more Web3 and enterprise platforms

16+ partners

Our 16 technology partners include:

  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Ludo
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz
  • Consensys
  • Gate Io
  • Coinbase
  • Core Scientific
  • Debut Infotech
  • Axoni
  • Alchemy
  • Starkware
  • Mara Holdings
  • MicroStrategy
  • Nubank
  • Okx
  • Uniswap
  • Riot
  • Leeway Hertz

About the founder and CTO

Dmytro Nasyrov

Dmytro Nasyrov

Founder and CTO Pharos Production

Ask the founder a question

I design and build reliable software solutions - from lightweight apps to high-load distributed systems and blockchain platforms.

PhD in Artificial Intelligence, MSc in Computer Science (with honors), MSc in Electronics & Precision Mechanics.

  • 13 years in architecture of great software solutions tailored to customer needs for startups and enterprises

  • 23 years of practical enterprise customized software production experience

  • Lecturer at the National Kyiv Polytechnic University

  • Doctor of Philosophy in Artificial Intelligence

  • Master’s degree in Computer Science, completed with excellence

  • Master’s degree in Electronics and precision mechanics engineering

Choose your cooperation model

Pharos Production offers three project models, MVP, Full-fledged Production and Full-cycle Development, priced from $10,000 to $80,000. An MVP prototype takes about 3 months.

Suitable for the project test
MVP

Core software architecture, initial UI/UX, working prototype in 3 months

$9,500 - $24,000
Popular choice
Suitable in 9 out of 10 cases
Full-fledged Production

Software architecture, UI/UX, customized software development, manual and automated testing, cloud deployment

$21,000 - $45,000
Turnkey development
Full-cycle Development

Comprehensive software architecture and documentation, UI/UX design layouts, UI kit, clickable prototypes, cloud deployment, continuous integration, as well as automated monitoring and notifications.

$50,000 - $85,000

Prices vary based on project scope, complexity, timeline and requirements. Hourly rates range from $35 to $75 depending on role and seniority. Contact us for a personalized estimate.

Interaction models for staff augmentation, dedicated teams and outsourcing

Request staff augmentation

Need extra hands on your software project? Our developers can jump in at any stage - from architecture to auditing - and integrate seamlessly with your team to fill any technical gaps.

Popular choice

Hire dedicated experts

Whether you’re building from scratch or scaling fast, our engineers are ready to step in. You stay in control, and we handle the code.

Outsource your project

From first line to final audit, we handle the entire development process. We will deliver secure, production-ready software, while you can focus on your business.

187+ technologies

Technologies, tools and frameworks we use

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across blockchain, backend, frontend, mobile and DevOps - chosen for production reliability and performance.

Our engineers work with 187+ technologies across 10 categories: Frameworks, AI, Blockchains, DevOps, Clouds, Databases, Brokers, Tests, Programming, UI/UX.

  • Frameworks: Spring Boot, Erlang OTP, NodeJS, Phoenix, NestJS, Django, FastAPI, Express.js, React, Next.JS, Svelte, Angular, Vue.js, Remix, Astro, Nuxt.js, iOS, Android, Flutter, React Native, Capacitors, Ionic, Swift, Kotlin, Java, Dart
  • AI: OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Meta Llama, Mistral AI, Cohere, Ollama, xAI Grok, LangChain, LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, Hugging Face, PyTorch, TensorFlow, scikit-learn, LlamaIndex, Keras, XGBoost, LightGBM, OpenCV, spaCy, ONNX Runtime, Pinecone, Weaviate, Qdrant, Chroma, pgvector, Milvus, FAISS, MLflow, Weights & Biases, DVC, Kubeflow, AWS SageMaker, Azure ML, Google Vertex AI, NVIDIA Triton, Airflow, Ray Serve, vLLM, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude MCP, Semantic Kernel, Haystack
  • Blockchains: Ethereum, TON, Corda, Tron, Hedera, Stellar, Consensys GoQuorum, Solana, Arbitrum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Sei, Celo, Hyperledger, MultiversX, IOTA, Polkadot, Aptos, Neo, Flow, Algorand, Avalanche, EOS, Optimism, Polygon, Cosmos, Sui, Tezos, Ontology, Fantom, NEAR Protocol, VeChain, Base, IPFS, Amazon Managed Blockchain, Amazon QLDB, IBM Blockchain, Oracle Blockchain
  • DevOps: Kubernetes, Terraform, Docker, Istio, Prometheus, Grafana, Jenkins, ArgoCD, Ansible, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Pulumi, Datadog, New Relic, Vault
  • Clouds: Amazon Web Services, Azure, Google Cloud, Cloudflare, Vercel, DigitalOcean
  • Databases: PostgreSQL, MySQL MariaDB, Redis, Cassandra, Neo4J, MongoDB, Elasticsearch, Solr, Ignite, ClickHouse, TimescaleDB, DynamoDB, Supabase, CockroachDB, ScyllaDB
  • Brokers: Kafka, RabbitMQ, Flink, Apache Pulsar, Amazon SQS, Amazon SNS, NATS
  • Tests: Postman, Appium, Cucumber, Selenium, JMeter, Cypress
  • Programming: Solidity, FunC, Rust, GoLang, Elixir, Erlang, C++, Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Scala, Python, C#, .NET, PHP, Ruby, Dart, SQL
  • UI/UX: Figma, Zeplin, InVision, Sketch, Miro, Marvel, Balsamiq, Photoshop, Illustrator, XD, After Effects, Corel Draw

Frameworks

Backend Frameworks 8

Spring Boot
Spring Boot
Erlang OTP
Erlang OTP
NodeJS
NodeJS
Phoenix
Phoenix
NestJS
NestJS
Django
FastAPI
Express.js

Front End Frameworks 8

React
React
Next.JS
Next.JS
Svelte
Svelte
Angular
Angular
Vue.js
Remix
Astro
Nuxt.js

Mobile Apps Frameworks 10

iOS
iOS
Android
Android
Flutter
Flutter
React Native
React Native
Capacitors
Capacitors
Ionic
Ionic
Swift
Swift
Kotlin
Kotlin
Java
Java
Dart
Trusted & Certified

Partnerships and awards

Recognized on Clutch, GoodFirms and The Manifest for software engineering excellence

  • Partner1
  • Partner2
  • Partner3
  • Partner4
  • Partner5
19+ industry awards

An approach to the development cycle

The Pharos Delivery Framework divides every project into 2-week sprints. After each sprint we hold a retrospective, deliver a progress report and plan the next sprint. This methodology is why agile projects are 3x more likely to succeed than waterfall (Standish Group CHAOS Report, 2024).

  1. Team Assembly

    Our company starts and assembles an entire project specialists with the perfect blend of skills and experience to start the work.

  2. MVP

    We’ll design, build and launch your MVP, ensuring it meets the core requirements of your software solution.

  3. Production

    We’ll create a complete software solution that is custom-made to meet your exact specifications.

  4. Ongoing

    Continuous Support

    Our company will be right there with you, keeping your software solution running smoothly, fixing issues and rolling out updates.

Skip glossary

QA and Testing Services Glossary 7

Test Pyramid
A layered QA strategy that prioritizes a large base of fast unit tests, a mid-layer of service-level API tests and a smaller top layer of slower end-to-end UI tests to keep feedback loops short.
Flaky Test
An automated test that produces inconsistent pass or fail results across identical builds, usually caused by timing dependencies, shared test state or non-deterministic external calls that must be mocked or quarantined.
Visual Regression Testing
A technique that captures pixel-level screenshots of UI components after each build and diffs them against baseline images to detect unintended layout or style changes without manual inspection.
Contract Testing
An approach where the consumer of an API specifies an expected response contract (using tools like Pact) and the provider is verified independently against that contract, catching integration breaks before end-to-end tests run.
Shift-Left Security Testing
The practice of running SAST scanners, dependency audits and secret-detection checks inside the CI pipeline at the earliest possible stage rather than waiting for a dedicated security review phase.
Performance Baseline
A recorded set of latency, throughput and error-rate metrics captured under a fixed load profile that future builds are automatically compared against to detect performance regressions before production.
Headless Browser Testing
Automated UI tests executed by a browser engine (Chromium via Playwright or Cypress) without rendering a visible window, enabling fast parallel test runs on CI infrastructure without a display server.

Frequently asked questions about QA and Testing Services

Last updated:

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    The right answer depends on release cadence, regression cost and team size - but the shape should be a pyramid. Target ~70% unit tests (fast, focused on logic), ~20% integration tests (fast, focused on boundaries), ~10% E2E tests (slow, focused on the 5-10 critical user journeys).

    If your ratio is flipped (mostly E2E), your CI is slow and flaky by construction. The fix is to move coverage down the pyramid, not to add more E2E tests.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    QA MVP (audit + critical-path automation + CI integration): 4-8 weeks. Full test platform (automation coverage targets, performance harness, security baseline, accessibility audit): 3-6 months.

    Embedded QA engineer supporting release cycles: month-to-month. We do not recommend engagements under one month - the ramp cost outweighs the value.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    QA audit + roadmap from $8,000. Automation MVP $20,000-$60,000 (critical-path suite + CI integration). Full test platform $60,000-$180,000+ (pyramid, performance, security, accessibility, monitoring). Embedded QA engineer from $8,000/month. Cost drivers: codebase size, test pyramid starting state, release cadence, compliance requirements.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Quarantine-then-fix policy. Any test that fails then passes on rerun gets auto-quarantined into a separate suite.

    Quarantined tests have a 3-day root-cause window before being deleted. We instrument per-test flake rates in CI dashboards so flakes surface early. Flaky tests are worse than no tests - they train engineers to ignore CI, which is how real regressions leak to production.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. k6 or Gatling for scripted load testing, Grafana + Prometheus for observability, JMeter for legacy protocols.

    Tests run in CI nightly against staging with clear targets (concurrent users, request rate, p99 latency, error rate). We have built load harnesses for sportsbook platforms at 50,000 concurrent users, payment systems at 12,000 transactions/second and SaaS platforms handling millions of daily API calls.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. Accessibility: axe-core in CI for WCAG 2.1 AA, manual screen reader audits (NVDA, VoiceOver) on critical flows.

    Security: Semgrep + CodeQL for SAST, OWASP ZAP or Burp Suite for DAST, Snyk or Trivy for dependency scanning, secrets detection via gitleaks. Both are integrated into the CI pipeline so regressions surface at PR time.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    Yes. Firebase Test Lab for Android (15-25 representative devices per run), BrowserStack or Sauce Labs for iOS + Android + browser matrix, Appium or Detox for cross-platform UI automation, XCUITest for native iOS, Espresso for native Android.

    We scope the device matrix during discovery based on the target market - emerging markets need different devices than US-only apps.

  • Copy link Copies a direct link to this answer to your clipboard.

    We decline projects without a defined quality bar or release criteria, manual-only QA where automation would pay back in 3 months, compliance-theater QA without remediation budget, engagements without a client-side product owner answering requirements questions and “automate everything” projects without a test pyramid plan. We also decline engagements shorter than one month.

The Pharos takeaway on QA and testing

QA and testing in 2026 is a continuous capability, not a release gate. Pharos Production builds QA programs with contract tests, deterministic E2E, ephemeral environments and production observability closed into the QA loop, so defects surface in CI, not in production.

Dmytro Nasyrov, Founder and CTO at Pharos Production
Dmytro Nasyrov Founder & CTO Let’s work together!

Your business results matter

Achieve them with minimized risk through our bespoke innovation capabilities

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]

What happens next?

  1. Contact us

    Contact us today to discuss your project. We’re ready to review your request promptly and guide you on the best next steps for collaboration

    Same day

  2. NDA

    We’re committed to keeping your information confidential, so we’ll sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement

    1 day

  3. Plan the Goals

    After we chat about your goals and needs, we’ll craft a comprehensive proposal detailing the project scope, team, timeline and budget

    3-5 days

  4. Finalize the Details

    Let’s connect on Google Meet to go through the proposal and confirm all the details together!

    1-2 days

  5. Sign the Contract

    As soon as the contract is signed, our dedicated team will jump into action on your project!

    Same day

Our offices

Headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada. Engineering office in Kyiv, Ukraine.

We also work with clients through dedicated local teams in Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco.

Las Vegas, United States

Headquarters PT
5348 Vegas Dr, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108, United States

Kyiv, Ukraine

Engineering office EET (UTC+2)
44-B Eugene Konovalets Str. Suite 201, Kyiv 01133, Ukraine

Let’s work together!

Leave a request and we will contact you as soon as possible

Contact form for Pharos Production. Submit your name, email and message to reach our team directly. Free consultation, no commitment.

Your contact details
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter your message
* required

We typically reply within 4 hours. Prefer email? [email protected]