5 Things to Look for in a Penetration Testing Company in 2026

Choosing the right penetration testing company is one of the most consequential security decisions your organization will make. With cybercrime damages reaching $10.5 trillion annually and the average data breach costing $4.8 million, the Return on Investment (ROI) of threat-led penetration testing couldn’t be higher. Yet the penetration testing market is saturated with vendors offering widely varying levels of service, from genuine expert-driven penetration tests to little more than automated vulnerability scans augmented by AI and dressed up with fancy reports. Telling them apart isn’t easy.

The difference between real penetration testing and security theater often means the difference between preventing a breach and suffering one. This guide will help you identify the qualities that separate the best penetration testing companies who deliver real value from those that simply check boxes.

Qualities that the Best Penetration Testing Companies Have

Before diving into our five criteria, it’s important to understand what fundamentally separates exceptional penetration testing vendors from the rest. The best penetration testing companies don’t just focus on vulnerability discovery; they focus on providing the contextualized threat intelligence needed to build effective threat-informed defenses. They understand that compliance does not equate to good security, but that compliance is a natural byproduct of good security.

The baseline for penetration testing quality is established by the tactics and capabilities of real-world threat actors. If a vendor’s expertise and threat emulation capabilities fall short of what actual adversaries can do, their services will have significant coverage gaps. Top vendors measure themselves against this baseline, not against compliance checklists.

Top vendors maintain exclusive hiring processes, often requiring prospects to deliver complex mock projects before joining the team. They take time to understand your organization’s operational environment, industry-specific risks, business needs, corporate culture, and real threat landscape. Most importantly, they tailor their services to meet the unique needs of your organization from both a cost and capabilities perspective. The final product should be an impactful, value-focused report that delivers quality over quantity and helps to advance your overall security posture.

1. Proven Expertise and Verified Credentials

Technical expertise is the foundation of any legitimate penetration testing engagement. However, not all credentials carry equal weight, and not all experience translates to genuine and effective testing ability.

Look for Testers that Emphasize Hands-On Discovery & Exploitation

Manual penetration testing does not mean the same thing across all penetration testing vendors. Industry-standard penetration testing is largely compliance-focused, meaning the testing is designed to meet baseline regulatory requirements rather than reflect real-world threat capabilities. In those engagements, “manual” penetration testing typically means running an automated vulnerability scan and then manually validating exploitable findings. These vendors may perform limited vulnerability chaining, but it rarely approaches the sophistication of actual threat actors.

AI penetration testing vendors also fall into the compliance category, but with additional limitations. While they can identify, exploit, and occasionally chain vulnerabilities, they do not perform automated vulnerability scanning. This is a notable gap because reputable scanners cover more than 110,000 CVEs and include over 227,000 plugins. By comparison, one of the leading AI penetration testing vendors boasts successful exploitation of 229 distinct CVEs from the CISA KEV list, but the KEV list contains roughly 1,250 entries, all of which are likely detectable using traditional vulnerability scanners.

Threat-led penetration testing is fundamentally different. It requires testing at the same levels of capability as real threat actors, which means a truly manual process driven by human expertise, experience, and creativity. This is what enables the discovery of not only known vulnerabilities but also novel, previously unidentified ones. Real manual penetration testing can include vulnerability research, custom exploit development, and tailored tooling. Automated vulnerability scans may still be used to ensure baseline coverage, and AI can augment efficiency, but no technology today can replicate the creativity or adaptive reasoning of a skilled human attacker.

Certifications can be useful indicators of capability, but they are not definitive. Many of the most capable threat actors in the world hold no certifications, their work speaks for itself. Certifications should serve as supporting evidence, not as a substitute for demonstrated skill. Look for team members who hold certifications that require genuine hands-on exploitation, but weigh their true capability based on accomplishments, track record, and professional reputation.

Examples of certifications that require real exploitation include:

• OSCP – Requires exploitation of multiple machines in a 24-hour practical exam
• OSWE – Demonstrates advanced web exploitation capability
• GPEN – Validates structured penetration testing methodology
• GWAPT – Focused on web application penetration testing
• CRTO – Focused on adversary simulation and red-team tradecraft
• CISSP – Broader in scope, indicating senior-level security understanding

Be cautious of vendors who primarily tout certifications that are purely multiple-choice exams without practical components, as these may reflect theoretical knowledge rather than real exploitation experience.

Real-World Experience Over Theoretical Knowledge

Certifications are only a starting point, not the finish line. When evaluating vendors, dig into their team’s actual real-world experience across different environments and threat models. Ask questions like:

• Have they tested environments similar to yours (cloud-native, legacy, hybrid)?
• Do they have experience with your specific tech stack or industry?
• Have they discovered novel vulnerabilities or published meaningful security research?
• Do they have backgrounds in vulnerability research or exploit development?
• Do they build their own tools, including custom Command & Control frameworks?

If a vendor claims to perform vulnerability or zero-day research, ask for proof. Request at least three published authoritative references. If they cannot produce evidence, they likely don’t actually do research; and research-based techniques are what separate genuine manual penetration testing from automated/AI scanning with manual validation.

You can verify research claims through public sources like Packet Storm Security, Exploit-DB, SecurityFocus, and vendor security advisories. Some vendors may be referenced in more authoritative ways like books and case studies.  Most vendors who do legitimate research will publish at least some of it for credibility purposes, or will have in the past.

Vendors with experience in zero-day research, exploit development, malware development, or custom C2 framework development bring capabilities that firms built around standard, checklist-driven methodologies cannot match.

2. Customized Testing Aligned With Your Unique Needs

Every organization has a different technology stack, different business priorities, different security maturity, and different threat actors who might target them. A penetration test that ignores these differences is a penetration test that will miss what actually matters.

Consider the difference: a healthcare organization protecting patient records faces different threats than a defense contractor protecting classified designs, which faces different threats than a retail company protecting payment card data. The attacker motivations differ, the attack paths and methods differ, and the consequences of a breach differ. A one-size-fits-all penetration test treats all three the same while serving none of them well.

Why Customization Requires Deep Discovery

Effective customization isn’t just asking “what do you want us to test?” It requires the vendor to genuinely understand your environment before defining scope. That means learning:

• Your technology landscape: What platforms, applications, and infrastructure actually exist? Where are the integration points? What’s legacy versus modern?
• Your business context: What does your organization actually do, and what assets would an attacker care about? Customer data? Intellectual property? Operational availability?
• Your security maturity: How sophisticated are your existing defenses? Has your team been through this before, or is this your first real test? Can your environment handle aggressive testing tactics, or do we need to be more careful?
• Your history: Have you experienced breaches or incidents before? What happened, and what changed as a result? This context shapes where testing should focus.
• Your threat model: Who would realistically target your organization, and how would they do it? Nation-state actors operate differently than ransomware gangs, who operate differently than opportunistic criminals.

Without this understanding, the vendor is guessing, or worse, applying the same generic playbook they use for everyone.

Compliance-Driven Testing vs. Threat-Informed Testing

Checklist-driven penetration tests exist to satisfy third parties. They follow a standard methodology, test against a standard list of vulnerabilities, and produce a standard report. They’re efficient for the vendor because the same process works for every client. But that efficiency for the vendor comes at the cost of inadequacy for you.

Threat-informed testing starts from a different question: not “what does the compliance framework require?” but “what would a real attacker do to this specific organization?” That question can only be answered after understanding who you are, what you have, and why someone would want to compromise you. The resulting contextualized threat intelligence is what enables you to build genuinely effective defenses.

The difference shows up in the results. Compliance-driven testing might confirm you’re not vulnerable to the OWASP Top 10. Threat-informed testing might reveal that an attacker could chain together three low-severity findings with knowledge of your business processes to access your most sensitive data, a path that no checklist would ever find and that you could only address with threat-informed penetration testing.

Questions to Ask Vendors

When evaluating a penetration testing company, ask how they approach scoping. If they can quote you a price after a five-minute conversation, or by knowing how many IP addresses or pages you have, they’re not customizing anything. If they take the time to study and understand your environment, your concerns, and your objectives before proposing anything, they’re more likely to deliver a quality service.

3. Transparent Pricing Tied Directly to Real Workload

Pricing is where you can quickly separate genuine penetration testing firms from vendors selling dressed-up vulnerability scans.

Avoid “Per IP” or Count-Based Pricing

Count-based pricing is a red flag. You cannot determine the cost for a genuine penetration test by counting IPs, URLs, pages, or APIs. That’s volume licensing logic for software, not expert human labor.

Consider a concrete example: 100 IP addresses in scope at $500 per IP yields a $50,000 quote. But a workload-based analysis might reveal that only 30 of those IPs are actively in use, with varying levels of complexity. Factoring in actual workload, the real cost could be $13,000, or it could be $80,000 if those 30 systems are highly complex. Count-based pricing gets the answer wrong in both directions because it ignores the work entirely.

Since count-based pricing does not take workload into account, the associated methodology must depend on automated vulnerability scanning and/or AI. This enables vendors to replace human work with automation, which keeps costs low and quality lower. If a vendor uses count-based pricing, expect their services to fall into the compliance-grade category at best.

Seek Workload-Based Diagnostics

Genuine manual penetration testing depends on human expertise and labor. Vendors who truly deliver manual testing need a clear understanding of workload before they can price accurately. The use of a diagnostic pricing methodology is a strong indicator that the vendor will deliver genuine manual penetration testing services.

Reputable vendors analyze your actual attack surface before providing a quote. They’ll conduct diagnostic discovery to understand which live services have connectable interfaces, what level of complexity those services present, and how much time competent testers will need. This approach mirrors how any expert service provider operates, a roofing company examines a roof before quoting, and penetration testing should be no different.

Transparent pricing also means clear communication about what’s included: How many days of testing? What’s the scope of post-exploitation? Is retesting included? Avoid vendors who obscure these details or bundle everything into opaque “packages.”

4. Ethical Practices and Strong Internal Security

Penetration testers will have access to some of your most sensitive systems and data. Before granting that access, you need confidence in their ethical standards and internal security practices.

Background Checks and Ethical Vetting

Ask directly about the vendor’s hiring practices. Do they conduct background checks on all testers? How do they verify the credentials and histories of their team members? What is their policy if a tester discovers genuinely sensitive data during an engagement?

Reputable vendors will have clear answers to these questions. They understand that their reputation depends on maintaining absolute ethical standards, one breach of trust can destroy decades of built credibility.

Also ask whether the vendor uses contractors and whether any testers are located outside your country. There are talented testers around the world, but you should be aware of where your data may be accessed from. Some organizations have strict policies about contractor access or data handling across borders. Ideally, your sensitive data should never leave your network because the tester should be connecting to an authorized device within the scoped environment to perform testing.

Secure Data Handling Practices

How does the vendor handle your data during and after the engagement? Specific questions to ask:

• How will testing data be transmitted?
• How will testing data be stored, and is it encrypted?
• How and when will your data be erased after engagement completion?
• Do they provide a certificate of data destruction?
• Do they have their own security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001)?

While many smaller penetration testing firms may not have formal SOC 2 compliance, equivalent controls should be in place. Consider requesting a completed security questionnaire like the Vendor Security Alliance (VSA) to understand the company’s internal security program.

A vendor that can’t articulate their own security practices should not be trusted with yours.

5. Quality Assurance, Reporting, and Retesting

The deliverable you receive, and what happens after, reveals a vendor’s true commitment to your partnership and your security.

Reports That Demonstrate Manual Proof

Ask to see a sample report before engaging. Quality penetration testing reports go beyond listing vulnerabilities, they clearly outline how an attacker could compromise your environment. A well-structured report typically includes an Executive Summary, Path to Compromise, Technical Review, Detailed List of Vulnerabilities, Recommendations, and Appendices. Look specifically for:

• Path to Compromise documentation showing full attack chains from initial access to objective
• Proof of exploitation with screenshots and detailed reproduction steps—not theoretical risk ratings
• Business impact analysis written for executives, not just technical teams
• Actionable remediation guidance tailored to your specific environment
• Customization and contextual analysis showing the testing adapted to your specific configurations

If the sample report reads like automated scanner output with generic recommendations, it probably is. Manual testing typically uncovers vulnerabilities that scanners miss, business logic errors, advanced misconfigurations, and multi-step exploitation chains are just a few. If the report doesn’t include such findings, question how much manual testing actually occurred.

False Positives = Red Flag

A penetration test provides proof of vulnerability through exploitation. Exploitation is either successful or it is not. As a result, penetration test deliverables should never contain even a single false positive. Reports bloated with unverified or low-confidence findings indicate heavy reliance on automated tools without proper manual validation, or a gross lack of expertise.

Reports may contain theoretical findings, which are not false positives and are supported by evidence, for example, demonstrating that a password hash could be cracked given sufficient time. But every finding should be backed by proof, not scanner output that hasn’t been verified.

Retesting and Ongoing Validation

The test isn’t over when you receive the report. Ask whether the vendor includes complimentary retesting to verify that identified vulnerabilities have been properly remediated without any new issues being introduced. This should be included in the original engagement, if a vendor charges extra for verification, question their commitment to your actual security versus their billable hours.

Clarify what the retest covers. Some vendors retest all findings; others only address critical and high-risk issues. Understand this before signing.

Retesting should ideally occur within 60 days but no later than 90 days. A penetration test is a point-in-time assessment. The longer you wait to remediate and retest, the more deviations occur due to normal infrastructure activities like patch cycles, new system implementations, and newly discovered vulnerabilities.

Additionally, inquire about direct access to the actual tester who performed the work. Walk-through sessions where the tester explains findings and answers questions are invaluable, far more useful than receiving a PDF and never hearing from the vendor again.

Why Choose Netragard as Your Penetration Testing Vendor?

At Netragard, we’ve built our reputation on one principle: We Protect You From People Like Us. Founded in 2006 by security professionals with backgrounds in zero-day research and ethical hacking, we deliver penetration testing services that go beyond compliance to provide genuine security value.

What sets us apart:

• Proprietary Real Time Dynamic Testing™ methodology derived from vulnerability research and exploit development expertise, delivering depth that automated approaches cannot match
• Expert-led testing with team certifications including OSCP, OSWE, GPEN, CISSP, and CRTO
• Direct tester access so you can walk through findings with the professional who actually did the work
• Complimentary retesting within 60 days to verify your fixes actually work, included at no extra cost
• Transparent, workload-based pricing that reflects real effort, not count-based formulas
• Tiered service levels (Silver through Ruby Red) customized to match testing depth to your specific needs and budget
• Expertise that spans over 20 years.

Ready to experience penetration testing that delivers real security value? Contact us for a consultation and discover how genuine expert-driven testing can protect your organization from the threats that matter.