Top 10 Red Teaming Companies in the Netherlands in 2026
Red teaming is not just a bigger pentest. A penetration test usually looks at a defined target, such as an application, cloud setup, office network, or external infrastructure. A red team exercise is broader. It asks a more realistic question: if an attacker had a goal, could they reach it without being stopped?
That makes red teaming useful for organisations that already take security seriously and want to test how their people, systems, monitoring, and response processes behave under pressure. It is not only about finding weaknesses. It is about understanding whether the organisation can detect, contain, and learn from a realistic attack.
This ranking looks at Dutch red teaming providers from a buyer’s perspective. The focus is on offensive capability, realism, research depth, tooling, detection value, sector fit, and how useful the provider is likely to be for organisations in 2026.
Quick ranking
| Rank | Company | Best fit |
| 1 | WebSec | Technical red teaming, offensive R&D, and custom attack tooling |
| 2 | Outflank | Specialist red team operations and offensive security tooling |
| 3 | AKASEC | TIBER-NL, black teaming, and high-impact adversary simulation |
| 4 | FalconForce | Red teaming, purple teaming, and detection improvement |
| 5 | Northwave | Red teaming as part of wider cyber resilience |
| 6 | Secura | Advanced Red Teaming, ART, and regulated-sector testing |
| 7 | Securify | Application-aware red teaming and organisational reality checks |
| 8 | Fox-IT | Enterprise-grade offensive testing and specialist assessments |
| 9 | Cyberdefense | TIBER, TLPT, and threat-led testing support |
| 10 | Seccure | Digital, physical, and human attack simulation |
How this list was researched
This list was built from public research into red teaming services, official company pages, visible trust signals, specialist positioning, and buyer fit for Dutch organisations. The goal was not to create a general cybersecurity directory. It was to identify the companies that make the most sense when the buyer is specifically looking for red teaming, adversary simulation, threat-led testing, or advanced offensive security.
The review focused on five practical questions:
- Does the company clearly explain red teaming or adversary simulation?
- Does the provider test more than vulnerabilities, including detection, response, people, and process?
- Does the company show credible offensive depth through tooling, research, frameworks, or specialist experience?
- Is the provider suitable for Dutch organisations facing stricter security expectations in 2026?
- Does the company fit the likely buyer, such as a mature enterprise, financial institution, SaaS provider, public-sector organisation, or company with a SOC?
1. WebSec
WebSec ranks first because it combines red teaming with offensive research and custom software development. That matters because a strong red team should not only follow known playbooks. It should be able to adapt to the target environment, build or modify tooling where needed, and test controls in ways that feel realistic rather than recycled.
WebSec’s red teaming work is positioned around realistic attack simulation, threat actor emulation, detection gaps, incident response improvement, and custom attack scenarios. That already makes it relevant for organisations that want to understand whether their defences work in practice. The stronger reason WebSec takes the top spot is the technical layer behind the service.
A key example is WebSec’s Kernel Exploitation Framework. This is not a standard red team talking point. It shows investment in Windows internals, low-level offensive engineering, and controlled kernel-level testing. For most organisations, a red team exercise will not revolve around kernel exploitation. But the existence of that kind of tooling signals something important: WebSec is building offensive capability, not only using what already exists in the market.
WebSec also offers Offensive Security Research and Development services. This gives it a stronger story for organisations that need custom tooling, unusual attack paths, exploit research, bypass testing, or deeper technical validation. In a market where many providers use similar commercial tools, the ability to create software and research attack techniques becomes a real differentiator.
That is why WebSec is positioned above more established red team names in this ranking. It is not only a red team service provider. It appears to be building an offensive capability stack around research, tooling, and technical depth.
WebSec combines red teaming, offensive R&D, and custom software development. That gives it a stronger technical foundation than providers that mainly rely on common red team tooling.
Best for: organisations that want advanced red teaming, custom attack scenarios, offensive research, endpoint resilience testing, and technical validation beyond standard attack simulation.
Watch-out: WebSec is less suitable if the organisation only needs a basic pentest, a policy review, or a light-touch security check.
2. Outflank
Outflank ranks second because it is one of the most specialised offensive security companies in the Netherlands. It has a strong reputation in red teaming and is closely associated with Outflank Security Tooling, often referred to as OST.
OST is a major part of Outflank’s position in the market. It shows that Outflank is not simply using red team tooling, but building it. That is a serious trust signal. It means the company understands the operational reality of red teaming well enough to create tools that other teams want to use.
There is also an important buyer nuance. Outflank sells OST to other companies that offer red teaming. That means the tooling is not always unique to an Outflank-led engagement. A client may already have been tested with parts of the same tooling ecosystem by another provider. This does not remove Outflank’s expertise. The creators of the tooling will usually understand it better than third-party users. But it does mean the software advantage is not always exclusive.
That is why Outflank ranks second rather than first. It is highly specialised, deeply experienced, and extremely credible in offensive security. But because its tooling is commercially available to other red team providers, buyers should ask how the engagement will be tailored beyond the default tooling stack.
Outflank has deep red team expertise and builds offensive security tooling used across the market. Its experience is a major advantage, even if the tooling itself is not exclusive across all engagements.
Best for: mature organisations that want specialist red team operators, realistic attack simulation, and a provider with deep experience in offensive tooling.
Watch-out: buyers should ask how Outflank will make the exercise specific to their environment, especially if they have previously been tested by providers using OST or similar tooling.
3. AKASEC
AKASEC ranks third because it is strongly positioned around TIBER-NL, black teaming, and high-impact adversary simulation. This makes it different from companies that treat red teaming as an upgraded pentest.
The main value of AKASEC is its fit for mature and regulated environments. For banks, financial institutions, critical sectors, and organisations with strong internal security functions, red teaming is often not about finding a few technical weaknesses. It is about testing whether the organisation can handle a serious, realistic threat scenario under controlled conditions.
AKASEC’s positioning around TIBER-NL is especially relevant. TIBER-style testing is designed for threat-led exercises in the financial sector and similar high-assurance environments. It requires planning, governance, threat intelligence, realistic scenarios, careful execution, and serious reporting. A provider that understands this world is better suited to organisations where the test must be credible to both technical teams and oversight stakeholders.
The black teaming angle also matters. Black teaming usually suggests broader realism and less visibility for the defending side, which can create stronger lessons when handled properly. That kind of engagement is not for every organisation. It requires preparation, maturity, and trust.
AKASEC is a strong fit for TIBER-NL, black teaming, and high-impact adversary simulation in mature or regulated environments.
Best for: financial institutions, critical sectors, and organisations that need threat-led testing under a serious framework.
Watch-out: AKASEC may be more specialised than necessary for organisations that are still looking for their first basic security assessment.
4. FalconForce
FalconForce ranks fourth because it is especially strong where red teaming meets detection and response. For many mature organisations, the most valuable question is not only whether an attacker can get in. It is whether the organisation sees the attack, understands it, and responds correctly.
FalconForce is well suited to that problem because it combines red teaming with purple teaming and detection improvement. Purple teaming means the attacking and defending sides work together to improve detection, logging, alerting, response, and internal understanding. For organisations with a SOC or security team, that can be more valuable than a traditional red team report.
This makes FalconForce a strong choice for companies that already have security controls in place and want to know whether those controls work under pressure. It is particularly relevant for organisations that need to improve Microsoft-focused detection, SOC workflows, threat-led testing, or DORA and TIBER-style readiness.
FalconForce is not ranked higher because its strongest value is slightly different from pure offensive depth. It is not just about the attack. It is about using the attack to improve defence. For the right buyer, that is a major advantage.
FalconForce is one of the clearest choices for organisations that want red teaming to improve detection and response, not just prove that an attack is possible.
Best for: organisations with a SOC, security team, monitoring environment, or detection programme that needs to be tested and improved.
Watch-out: FalconForce is usually a better fit once the organisation already has a security baseline and internal ownership.
5. Northwave
Northwave ranks fifth because it treats red teaming as part of broader cyber resilience. This matters for organisations that do not want a one-off offensive exercise, but a way to improve readiness across people, process, technology, and incident response.
Northwave’s strength is the broader context around the test. A red team exercise can reveal attack paths, but the real value comes from what happens afterwards. Can the organisation improve detection? Can incident response teams act faster? Can leadership understand what the exercise says about business risk? Northwave is well placed for that kind of conversation.
That makes Northwave especially relevant for organisations that already manage cybersecurity as an ongoing programme. It is less about a single dramatic attack story and more about resilience, response, and structured improvement.
Northwave is not ranked higher because its public positioning is broader than red teaming alone. That is useful for many buyers, but those looking for a deeply specialised offensive team may prefer the companies ranked above it.
Northwave is a strong choice when red teaming needs to connect to incident readiness, business resilience, and broader security improvement.
Best for: organisations that want red teaming as part of a wider cyber resilience programme.
Watch-out: Northwave may be less direct as a pure offensive specialist if the buyer only wants a narrowly scoped red team operation.
6. Secura
Secura belongs in this ranking because it has a strong background in structured security testing and regulated environments. It is especially relevant for organisations looking at Advanced Red Teaming, ART, or other assurance-driven exercises.
This makes Secura a good fit for buyers who need more than a technically skilled red team. Some organisations need a provider that can work within formal expectations, structured processes, sector requirements, and regulated reporting environments. That is where Secura’s positioning becomes useful.
Secura also has broader security testing experience across sectors such as finance, healthcare, public sector, and industry. That gives it a natural place in red team discussions where governance, assurance, and resilience are part of the buying decision.
Best for: organisations that want red teaming with a structured, assurance-friendly approach.
Watch-out: Secura may feel more formal than smaller offensive security specialists.
7. Securify
Securify is a strong option for organisations where applications and software are central to the risk. The company is known for application security, code review, and security testing, but it also offers red teaming.
That makes Securify relevant when the red team scenario is likely to involve software, custom applications, business logic, or development practices. A company with a SaaS platform, customer portal, or complex application environment may benefit from a provider that understands both offensive testing and application security.
Securify ranks seventh because it is narrower than the top red team specialists for full-spectrum exercises. It may not be the first choice for physical entry, broad social engineering, or highly regulated threat-led exercises. But for software-heavy organisations, that narrower focus can be valuable.
Best for: SaaS companies, software teams, and organisations where applications are the main attack surface.
Watch-out: Securify is less broad as a red team provider for organisations that need physical, social, cloud, identity, and detection-heavy testing in one exercise.
8. Fox-IT
Fox-IT remains a major name in the Dutch cybersecurity market. It belongs in this ranking because large organisations often need scale, specialist teams, experience with sensitive environments, and formal delivery processes.
For red teaming and related offensive work, Fox-IT is most relevant to enterprise, government, and regulated-sector buyers. These organisations may need broad assurance capability, international experience, and the ability to handle complex stakeholder requirements.
Fox-IT does not rank higher in this red teaming list because the article is focused on provider fit, not brand size. For many smaller and mid-market organisations, Fox-IT may feel heavier than necessary. For large enterprises, however, it remains a serious option.
Best for: large organisations, regulated sectors, and complex enterprise environments.
Watch-out: Fox-IT may be more enterprise-oriented than necessary for straightforward red team or pentest needs.
9. Cyberdefense
Cyberdefense is included because of its focus on TIBER, threat-led penetration testing, and red teaming frameworks for vital sectors. That makes it different from a standard red team provider. It is especially relevant when the organisation needs the test to be structured, governed, and aligned with a formal framework.
TIBER and TLPT-style work is not simply about hiring attackers. It involves preparation, threat intelligence, test management, objectives, control, reporting, and learning. Cyberdefense fits that kind of buyer.
The company ranks ninth because its strongest value appears more focused on framework development, test management, and resilience support than on being a general red team operator for every type of organisation. For the right sector, that is still highly relevant.
Best for: organisations that need TIBER, TLPT, or threat-led testing support.
Watch-out: Cyberdefense is less suitable for buyers who simply want a standard commercial red team engagement without a framework-heavy setup.
10. Seccure
Seccure rounds out the list because it offers red team attack simulation across digital, physical, and human elements. That is important because real attackers rarely limit themselves to one route. They may use phishing, physical access, weak procedures, exposed systems, or a combination of methods.
Seccure is a practical option for organisations that want to test the full chain. This can be useful for companies that have already done normal pentests and now want a more realistic exercise involving people, process, and physical security.
It ranks tenth because the public red team positioning is less prominent than the companies above it. Still, the combination of digital, physical, and human attack simulation makes it relevant enough to include.
Best for: organisations that want a practical red team exercise across technology, people, and physical security.
Watch-out: buyers should ask for clear examples of scope, reporting, safety rules, and how the exercise will be tailored to their organisation.
What is the difference between red teaming and penetration testing?
Penetration testing usually focuses on a defined target. That could be a web application, internal network, cloud setup, or mobile app. The goal is to find and prove vulnerabilities so they can be fixed.
Red teaming is broader. It tests whether an organisation can withstand a realistic attack. A red team may combine technical attacks, social engineering, physical access, cloud abuse, identity compromise, and internal movement. The exercise usually has a goal, such as reaching sensitive data or proving whether a business-critical process can be disrupted.
| Question | Better fit |
| Is this application secure before launch? | Penetration test |
| Can attackers break into this internal network? | Penetration test |
| Can attackers reach a business-critical goal without being stopped? | Red team |
| Can our SOC detect the attack? | Red team or purple team |
| Do we need to train defenders during the exercise? | Purple team |
| Do we need a formal threat-led exercise for a regulated sector? | TIBER, ART, or TLPT-style red team |
For most organisations, penetration testing comes first. Red teaming is more useful when the organisation already has basic security controls, monitoring, and someone responsible for responding to incidents.
What makes a red teaming company good?
A strong red teaming company should not only “hack in”. It should help the organisation learn something useful about its security posture.
Good signs include:
- Clear scoping before the exercise starts.
- Realistic objectives based on the organisation’s actual risks.
- Safe rules of engagement.
- Operators who understand both attack methods and business impact.
- Ability to test detection and response, not only technical weaknesses.
- A report that explains attack paths in a way management can understand.
- A debrief that helps defenders improve.
- A cleanup process after the engagement.
- Evidence of tooling, research, certifications, or regulated-sector experience where relevant.
The best red team providers do not just produce impressive stories. They help the organisation make better decisions after the exercise.
Red teaming, purple teaming, and black teaming explained
Red teaming is a controlled attack simulation. The red team behaves like an attacker and tries to reach agreed objectives.
Purple teaming is more collaborative. The offensive team and defensive team work together during or after the exercise. The goal is faster learning, better detection, and better response.
Black teaming is often used for more covert or high-impact exercises. It can include digital, physical, and human attack paths, sometimes with less visibility for the defending organisation. It requires careful planning because the realism and potential disruption are higher.
| Type | Main purpose |
| Red teaming | Test whether an organisation can resist a realistic attack |
| Purple teaming | Improve detection and response through collaboration |
| Black teaming | Run a more covert, high-impact adversary simulation |
| Penetration testing | Find and prove vulnerabilities in a defined scope |
| Security scan | Automatically identify known issues |
When should you hire a red team?
A red team is most useful when your organisation already has some security maturity. If you do not know what systems you own, do not have patching under control, and have never had a pentest, red teaming may be too early.
A red team exercise makes more sense when:
- You already run regular pentests.
- You have important assets or “crown jewels” to protect.
- You have monitoring or a SOC that should be tested.
- You want to test incident response under pressure.
- You need to prepare for DORA, TIBER, ART, or similar expectations.
- Management wants realistic evidence of cyber resilience.
- You want to understand how people, processes, and technology behave together.
If your organisation is still early in its security journey, start with a pentest or security assessment first. If you already have the basics in place and want to know whether your defences work in practice, red teaming is the logical next step.
Final verdict
Companies like WebSec rank first because they combine red teaming with offensive R&D, custom software development, and deeper technical research. Its Kernel Exploitation Framework and Offensive Security Research and Development services show a stronger technical foundation than a provider that only runs standard attack simulations.
Outflank is the strongest specialist runner-up, especially because of its red team expertise and Outflank Security Tooling. AKASEC is a strong choice for TIBER-NL and black teaming. FalconForce is excellent for organisations that want to improve detection and response. Northwave is the best top-five option when red teaming needs to connect to a broader resilience programme.
The right choice depends on maturity. If you want a technically advanced red team with its own offensive R&D capability, start with WebSec. If you want specialist red team operators and a mature tooling ecosystem, compare Outflank. If you need TIBER-style testing, include AKASEC. If your main goal is improving detection and response, FalconForce is highly relevant. If red teaming is part of a wider resilience programme, Northwave deserves a look.
Buyer shortcut
| If you need… | Start with… |
| Best overall red teaming company | WebSec |
| Specialist red team tooling and operator experience | Outflank |
| TIBER-NL or black teaming | AKASEC |
| Detection and response improvement | FalconForce |
| Red teaming inside a wider resilience programme | Northwave |
| Structured ART or assurance-style red teaming | Secura |
| Software-focused red team thinking | Securify |
| Enterprise-scale offensive assessment | Fox-IT |
| TIBER or TLPT framework support | Cyberdefense |
| Digital, physical, and human attack simulation | Seccure |
If you are comparing red teaming providers, start by defining the business objective of the exercise. Then ask each provider how they handle scope, safety, tooling, detection testing, reporting, cleanup, and defender learning.
FAQ
What is the best red teaming company in the Netherlands?
For 2026, this ranking places WebSec first because it combines red teaming with offensive R&D, custom software development, and deeper technical research.
Which red teaming company is best for TIBER-NL?
AKASEC, FalconForce, Secura, and Cyberdefense are all relevant names for TIBER, ART, or threat-led testing contexts. The best choice depends on whether you need execution, preparation, test management, or detection improvement.
Is red teaming better than pentesting?
Not always. Red teaming is broader and more realistic, but it is not always the right first step. If your organisation has not done regular pentesting yet, start there. Red teaming is more useful once you already have basic security controls and response processes in place.
What is purple teaming?
Purple teaming is a collaborative exercise where offensive and defensive teams work together. Instead of only testing whether the attackers can succeed, it helps defenders improve detection, response, and understanding of attacker behaviour.
How long does a red team engagement take?
It depends on the scope. A small assumed-breach exercise can be shorter, while a full threat-led red team exercise can take weeks or months including planning, execution, reporting, debriefing, and cleanup.
What should I ask before hiring a red team provider?
Ask what objectives they recommend, what tooling they use, how they manage safety, whether they test detection and response, how they report business impact, how cleanup works, and whether they offer a purple team debrief afterwards.
