Aikido
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Aikido's? The following comparison table enables you to discern
the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company’s cybersecurity
needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions in the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Aikido
|
|
Focus
|
Native ASPM with in-house scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
WAF and MPT
|
|
Headcount
|
143 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 26%, IT 6%, sales 26%,
marketing 6%, operations 2% and others 34%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+57%, +155%, +615%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
BE | |
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
BE and US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.32 from 127 reviews over 2 years on
Capterra, G2, Gartner and TrustRadius
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
41K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Frost & Sullivan
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2022
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$24.6M USD in 3 rounds from 12
investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 10M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II | |
|
Bug bounty
|
Yes | ||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
176K per month. Top 3: 16% US, 8% DE,
8% UK. Others 68%
|
|
|
Authority
|
38 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
Discovered and third-party
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, comparison, customer stories,
documentation and glossary
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 3 in common
and 10 additional
|
3 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and Github | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
PoC
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplaces and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (basic, pro, scale). First 2
transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
Containers, CSPM, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
10 users
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Users
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
315 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Aikido
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No. MPT
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No information available | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No information available
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No information available
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
No information available
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability
research
|
|
SLA
|
No | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
None
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee or Freelance
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
No information available
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
No information available
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 6 in common and 61
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
8 standards, 6 in common and 2
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools, AI and human
intelligence
|
|
|
False positives
|
4.24 times better
|
6.67 times better
|
14% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
6.24 times better
|
17.95 times better
|
4% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 3 in common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
3, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Aikido
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
2 functionalities, all in common
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
2, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS and EPSS
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house and External (Trivy and Syft
for SCA)
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 11 in common and 12
additional
|
14 package managers, 11 in common and 3
additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
Yes. No information available
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Deterministic
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 7 in common and 15
additional
|
14 package managers, 7 in common and 7
additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12, all in common
|
16, 12 in common and 4 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
SAST
|
|
IaC
|
6, 2 in common and 4 additional
|
4, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack surface types, 1 in common and
6 additional
|
4 attack surface types, 1 in common
and 3 additional
|
|
|
API security testing
|
No
|
4 types of APIs, 2 in common and 2
additional
|
2 types of APIs, all in common
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets types, 1 in common and 14
additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
1 secret type in common
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
2 functions, all in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (multi-tenant)
|
||
| Regions |
EU
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
0.2 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Aikido
|
|
SCM
|
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
12
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, all in common
|
10, 3 in common and 7 additional
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
3, all in common
|
9, 3 in common and 6 additional
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 7 in common and 14 additional
|
7, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native and 1 integration
|
||
|
Container
|
Native and 4 integrations | ||
|
SAST
|
Native and 1 integration
|
||
|
DAST
|
Native
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in common
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
CSPM
|
Native | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
4
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 22, 2025. The primary sources of information were aikido.dev and help.aikido.dev, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Aikido
Free trial
Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid Attacks' automated security testing! Start
your 21-day free trial and discover the
benefits of the Continuous
Hacking Essential plan. If you prefer the
Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.