★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4.9 Client Rated
TRUSTED BY THE WORLD’S MOST ICONIC COMPANIES.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 4.9 Client Rated
Your regulatory compliance requirements do not verify themselves. Our engineers test the technical controls your software must implement against HIPAA Security Rule safeguards, GDPR technical measures, PCI DSS 4.0 requirements, SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria, and ISO 27001 Annex A controls. Each engagement closes the gap between documented policy and verified implementation, producing an evidence package that supports your audit preparation. You receive control-level findings, test results mapped to specific framework requirements, and a prioritized remediation roadmap that tells your engineering team exactly what to fix and in what order.
Automated accessibility tools detect roughly 30 to 40 percent of real barriers. Our accessibility compliance testing combines automated scanning with expert manual testing to evaluate your web and mobile applications against WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2 success criteria at Level A, AA, and Level AAA where required, plus ADA Title III and Section 508 obligations. Manual testing covers screen reader compatibility with NVDA, JAWS, and VoiceOver, keyboard-only navigation, color contrast, focus management, and form error identification. You receive actionable findings tied to specific success criteria with developer-ready remediation guidance your front-end team can act on.
Privacy regulations in every major market impose specific technical requirements on how personal data is collected, processed, stored, and deleted. Our data privacy compliance testing verifies that your software implements GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, LGPD, PIPEDA, and PDPA requirements correctly in practice, not just in policy. Testing covers consent mechanism validation, data subject rights workflow verification, retention and deletion testing that confirms personal data is actually purged on schedule, data minimization checks that flag unnecessary collection, and cross-border transfer control verification. You receive technical findings linked to specific regulatory requirements with remediation guidance your engineering team can prioritize.
Financial services software operates under precise compliance requirements with serious consequences for failure. Our testing covers PCI DSS 4.0 technical requirements including cardholder data environment network segmentation validation, strong cryptography implementation, and authentication control verification. SOX IT general controls testing addresses access control, change management, and operational controls relevant to financial statement integrity. European framework coverage includes FCA Operational Resilience requirements and MiFID II record-keeping and data integrity obligations. We deliver the technical testing evidence your compliance and engineering teams need for regulatory submissions, examiner reviews, and internal audit processes.
Cloud provider compliance certifications cover the infrastructure layer and not the workloads, configurations, and data management practices you run on top of it. Our cloud compliance testing evaluates your environment configuration against the frameworks applicable to your workloads: HIPAA-eligible service configuration on AWS, PCI DSS network segmentation in cloud VPC architectures, GDPR data residency and cross-region replication settings, and SOC 2 infrastructure controls. We test against CIS Cloud Benchmarks and CSA Cloud Controls Matrix, providing the configuration-level evidence that compliance frameworks require and that cloud provider certifications alone do not supply.
Security compliance frameworks define control requirements in terms of policies and objectives, but verifying that controls are correctly implemented requires engineering testing. Our security compliance testing provides technical control verification across NIST CSF, CIS Controls, NIST 800-53, FedRAMP, CMMC, and ISO 27001 requirements. Testing covers access control and least-privilege verification, encryption algorithm and key management testing, audit logging completeness validation, vulnerability management program review against remediation SLAs, and configuration baseline verification across your environment. You get evidence of control implementation that satisfies auditor requirements, not just documented descriptions of intended controls.
Compliance testing that only happens before annual audit cycles creates compliance debt that accumulates with every deployment. Our CI/CD compliance automation integrates automated compliance checks directly into your delivery pipeline, making compliance a continuous engineering practice. We implement Open Policy Agent and Conftest for infrastructure compliance policy enforcement that blocks non-compliant deployments, SAST scanning for compliance-relevant code patterns, dependency scanning for known CVEs, secrets detection to prevent credential exposure, and automated evidence collection that builds your audit artifact package continuously. You spend weeks less on audit preparation because evidence collection happens with every deployment.
Organizations approaching compliance certification for the first time need an honest, technically grounded assessment of where they actually stand against their target requirements. Our compliance gap assessment conducts technical evaluation of your current controls, testing actual implementation rather than relying on policy documentation. You receive a prioritized remediation roadmap with engineering-level specificity: the controls that are missing or insufficiently implemented, the technical remediation required, estimated effort, and the sequencing that closes the highest-risk gaps first. Beyond assessment, we provide hands-on remediation support working alongside your engineering teams to implement controls before your audit begins.
Your compliance posture is only as strong as the vendors who process data on your behalf. Our third-party vendor compliance assessment evaluates the technical controls and compliance evidence of your critical vendors, SaaS platforms, and data processors against your applicable framework requirements. We review vendor SOC 2 reports, penetration test results, and security questionnaire responses with engineering depth, identify control gaps that surface-level vendor documentation can obscure, and produce a prioritized vendor risk register that tells you which vendor relationships require remediation actions before your next audit cycle or contract renewal.
APIs connecting regulated systems create compliance exposure that standard application testing often misses. Our API compliance testing evaluates the security and compliance controls protecting your API layer, including authentication and authorization enforcement, data validation and sanitization, rate limiting and abuse prevention, encryption in transit, and audit logging completeness for API-layer activity. For organizations subject to HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS, or financial services regulations, we map API control testing directly to your applicable framework requirements and produce endpoint-level findings with specific remediation guidance your development team can act on immediately without further analysis.
Mobile applications handling protected health information, payment card data, or personal data subject to GDPR and CCPA carry the same compliance obligations as web applications, with additional platform-specific control requirements. Our mobile compliance testing evaluates your iOS and Android applications against the technical requirements of your applicable frameworks: secure local data storage verification, biometric and PIN authentication control testing, certificate pinning and transport security validation, background processing data exposure testing, and app permission minimization verification. You receive compliance findings specific to your mobile platform with remediation guidance your mobile development team can implement directly.
Audit preparation that happens in the weeks before an audit engagement is expensive and creates compliance risk. Our compliance reporting and evidence packaging service builds audit-ready documentation continuously throughout your testing engagement. We produce control matrices mapped to your target framework requirements, test result reports in the formats auditors expect, remediation tracking documentation, and formatted evidence packages required for SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and PCI DSS audit submissions. You enter every audit engagement with complete, organized evidence rather than scrambling to reconstruct documentation from system logs and spreadsheets.
Openpay needed a substantial upgrade to its payment processing capabilities, particularly focusing on mobile applications. The aim was to integrate advanced technologies for secure credit card transactions and to enhance core business functionalities. The project demanded extensive technical expertise to support mobile payment initiatives and refine essential system processes.
Coca-Cola needed a solution to measure sentiment in comments, categorize themes, generate automated responses, and provide detailed reports by department. This approach would transform feedback data into a growth tool, promoting loyalty and continuous improvements in the business.
Banco Patagonia and Banco do Brasil approached us with the need to develop a native mobile banking app for Android and iOS, specifically for Banco Patagonia’s corporate segment. The goal was to ensure robust and secure access for business clients on both major mobile platforms.
A written access control policy does not verify that access controls are correctly configured. A documented encryption standard does not confirm that PHI is encrypted at rest in every database and backup location. Regulatory bodies and auditors distinguish between documented intent and verified technical implementation. The organizations facing material compliance failures are almost never those that lack policy documentation. They are those whose systems do not implement the controls their policies describe. Technical compliance testing that verifies your controls are actually working as specified is the only reliable method for closing the gap between documented and actual compliance.
Commercial compliance platforms like Vanta, Drata, and Scrut provide genuine value for evidence collection, control monitoring, and audit workflow management. They do not replace engineering-led compliance testing. Automated platforms verify that controls are configured: that MFA is enabled, that cloud storage encryption is on, that CI/CD integrations are connected. They do not verify that controls work correctly: that MFA enforcement prevents authentication without a second factor for every access path, that encryption key management meets framework requirements, or that access revocation happens within the required time window. The gaps these platforms miss are the ones auditors find.
Organizations subject to HIPAA, SOC 2, and GDPR simultaneously, or managing PCI DSS alongside ISO 27001, face a compliance program design choice with significant long-term cost implications. Building separate parallel compliance programs for each framework creates duplication of effort, inconsistent control implementations, and a maintenance burden that compounds as the number of applicable frameworks grows. A unified control architecture that maps a single set of technical controls to the requirements of multiple frameworks simultaneously is dramatically more efficient and consistently maintained. Designing it requires the technical depth to understand where control requirements overlap and where framework-specific gaps need dedicated controls.
US federal court filings for website accessibility lawsuits have reached several thousand annually, targeting organizations across retail, hospitality, healthcare, and financial services. Settlements commonly range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus remediation costs and legal fees. For organizations pursuing enterprise contracts, government procurement, or partnerships in regulated industries, WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is increasingly a contractual requirement in procurement processes. Proactive accessibility compliance testing is no longer primarily an ethical investment. It is a risk management decision with a measurable cost-benefit profile your legal and compliance teams can calculate from public settlement data.
Compliance frameworks define control requirements based on the threat environments understood when the framework was written, and they update on multi-year cycles that lag the current threat landscape. Organizations whose testing programs are built entirely around framework checklists produce evidence that satisfies auditors but does not necessarily reflect real defensive capability against current attack techniques. The most mature compliance programs combine framework control verification with threat-informed testing that validates your controls against the specific attack techniques most relevant to your system and industry. Checklist compliance is a floor, not a ceiling, and treating it as a ceiling creates exploitable risk.
Organizations that achieve SOC 2 Type II in six months rather than eighteen consistently share one practice: they integrate compliance requirements into development and infrastructure processes from the start rather than retrofitting controls onto systems designed without them. Treating security controls, privacy-by-design requirements, audit logging specifications, and data handling rules as engineering requirements reviewed in design and tested in CI/CD eliminates the expensive remediation work that pre-audit compliance programs require. The cost difference between implementing a control at design time versus pre-audit remediation compounds the later it is found. Shift-left programs cost less, certify faster, and maintain compliance more reliably.
SOC 2 Type II differs from Type I in one critical way: it requires your controls to be operating effectively over an observation period, typically three to twelve months, rather than just being in place at a point in time. Organizations that achieve Type I and immediately expect to progress to Type II often discover that the observation period represents a much larger calendar commitment than their compliance roadmap assumed. Planning your Type II engagement requires understanding which controls are in scope, when the observation period begins, and what gaps would restart the clock if discovered during auditor testing.
Auditors assess compliance based on the evidence presented, and evidence quality directly affects how confidently an auditor can conclude that a control is operating effectively. System-generated logs with complete timestamps, user identifiers, and action details are stronger evidence than manually compiled spreadsheets. Consistently formatted audit trails covering the full observation period are stronger than intermittent exports with unexplained gaps. Organizations that implement controls correctly but collect evidence poorly often experience extended audit timelines and additional auditor requests that delay certification. Building your evidence collection processes to auditor expectations from the start saves significant time and cost.
Penetration testing and compliance testing serve different purposes and produce different findings. A penetration test identifies exploitable vulnerabilities by simulating attacker techniques against your systems. Compliance testing verifies that specific controls required by a regulatory framework are correctly implemented and that they are producing the evidence required for audit. A penetration test may find network exploitability without assessing whether your cardholder data environment segmentation meets PCI DSS requirements. Compliance testing may verify encryption configuration without assessing resistance to current attack techniques. Both programs are necessary and neither is a substitute for the other.
Compliance controls that work at the point of initial certification commonly degrade when no single owner is accountable for maintaining them. Access reviews happen once before an audit and then stop. Audit logging gets disabled during a performance tuning exercise and never re-enabled. Patch management SLAs get treated as goals rather than compliance requirements. The technical controls that compliance frameworks require need the same ownership structures as other engineering systems: named owners, defined review cadences, change management processes, and monitoring that surfaces drift before the next audit cycle rather than during it. Compliance without ownership becomes compliance theater at scale.
The compliance frameworks your organization must satisfy apply to the vendors processing regulated data on your behalf, not just to your internal systems. A HIPAA Business Associate Agreement establishes legal accountability but does not verify that your BAA counterparty's technical controls actually meet HIPAA requirements. A vendor's SOC 2 Type II report covers controls the auditor tested during the observation period, not every control your specific use of their platform depends on. Vendor compliance assessment that evaluates technical controls against your actual data flows, rather than just collecting vendor documentation, is the step most internal programs skip.
GDPR enforcement actions from European data protection authorities have grown in both volume and penalty size each year since 2018, with penalties regularly reaching hundreds of millions of euros for systemic technical violations. HHS OCR HIPAA enforcement has intensified, with settlements targeting smaller covered entities and business associates, not just large hospital systems. PCI DSS 4.0 timelines are producing an enforcement environment where card brands scrutinize compliance evidence more carefully than under prior versions. Organizations that treat compliance as a periodic certification activity rather than a continuously maintained technical practice face increasing enforcement risk as regulators grow more technically sophisticated.
Smooth. Swift. Simple.
We are eager to learn about your business objectives, understand your tech requirements, and specific Compliance Testing needs.
We can assemble your team of experienced, timezone-aligned, expert Compliance Testing developers within 7 days.
Our [tech] developers can quickly onboard, integrate with your team, and add value from the first moment.
Whether you’re looking to leverage the latest technologies, improve your infrastructure, or build high-performance applications, our team is here to guide you.
Accelerate your software development with our on-demand nearshore engineering teams.
