Aqua
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Aqua'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
|
Aqua
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Headcount
|
|||
|
Headcount distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
|||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
7.88 from 117 reviews
over 6 years
on: G2, Gartner,
PeerSpot and TrustRadius
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research Firms
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$325M
USD in 8 rounds from 12 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 0 times and made 3
acquisitions
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type
II and SOC
3
|
||
|
Bug bounty
|
|||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability database
|
|||
|
Content
|
|||
|
Knowledge base
|
13 KB
sections
|
No information available
|
|
|
Community
|
|||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
||
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all
free
|
||
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GCP | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Open Demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans
(standard, advanced, ultimate). All transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
|||
|
Minimum payment period
|
|||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum scope
|
1 group
|
1 author
|
No information available
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Aqua
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day
vulnerability research
|
|
|
SLA
|
Support | ||
|
Min availability
|
>=99.95%
per minute LTM
|
>=99.9% per
month
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Accreditations
|
|||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards,
5 in common and 62 additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
8 standards,
5 in common and 3 additional
|
|
Detection method
|
|||
|
False positives
|
7.47 times better
|
11.75 times better
|
8% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
12.37 times better
|
35.58 times better
|
2% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5,
3 in common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
4, all in
common
|
|
Outputs
|
5,
3 in common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
5, 3 in common and
2 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Aqua
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
|||
|
IDE
|
Same, plus
1 functionality
|
3 functionalities,
2 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, none in common
|
1 source
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
|||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
External (Trivy
for SCA)
|
||
|
SCA
|
22 package
managers, 16 in
common and 6
additional
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
Yes.
No information available
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
|||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 14 in common and 8 additional | ||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
4 distributions,
all in common
|
13 distributions,
4 in common and 9 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
IaC
|
6,
3 in common and 3 additional
|
4,
1 in common and 3 additional
|
5,
4 in common and 1 additional
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of
binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of
binaries
|
4 types
of binaries, none in
common
|
|
DAST
|
No |
||
|
API security testing
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes | ||
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets
types, 2 in common and 13 additional
|
Same,
plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability
|
8 secrets
types, 2 in common and 6 additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions,
1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 function in common | |
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
Apache license
2.0. Partially equivalent to the paid version
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and on-premises
|
||
| Regions |
No information
available
|
||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Aqua
|
|
SCM
|
None
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Ticketing
|
3,
1 in common
and 2 additional
|
1 in common |
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
3, 2 in
common and 1
additional
|
14, 2 in common and 12 additional |
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 5 in common and 16
additional
|
5, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native powered by Trivy |
||
|
Container
|
|||
|
SAST
|
None |
||
|
DAST
|
None |
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in common
|
6, 3 in common and 3
additional
|
|
|
CSPM
|
Native and 2 integrations | ||
|
Secrets
|
|||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Oct 21, 2025.
More like Aqua
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.