Arnica
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Arnica'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
|
Arnica
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
|||
|
Headcount
Distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount
Growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
|||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
||
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Frost
& Sullivan and IDC
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$7M
USD in 2 rounds from 5 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
257 CVEs
reported to
MITRE, ranked in the top 10
CVE labs
worldwide
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
|
|
Compliance
|
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II | ||
|
Bug Bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
database
|
None
|
||
|
Content
|
|||
|
Knowledge
base
|
13 KB
sections, 4 in common and 9 additional
|
4 KB sections,
all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync
training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async
training
|
3 product use courses, all
free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Open Demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (Team, business and
enterprise). All transparent
|
|
Minimum
term
|
|||
|
Minimum payment
period
|
|||
|
Minimum
capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum
scope
|
1 group
|
1 author
|
1 identity
|
|
Pricing
drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly
payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Arnica
|
|
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
|
None
|
|
SLA
|
Availability and support | ||
|
Min
availability
|
>=99.95%
per minute LTM
|
No information available
|
|
|
After-sale
guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
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
|
5 standards, all in
common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools and AI
|
||
|
False positives
|
7.54 times better
|
11.86 times better
|
8% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
11.86 times better
|
34.09 times better
|
2% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
2, 1 in common
and 1 additional
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same,
plus 2
|
4, 3 in
common and 1 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Arnica
|
|
ASPM
|
|||
|
API
|
No
|
||
|
IDE
|
Same, plus 1
functionality
|
No
|
|
|
CLI
|
No
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
sources
|
4 sources
|
No information available
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority
criteria
|
|||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner
origin
|
|||
|
SCA
|
23 package
managers, 16 in common and 7 additional
|
20 package
managers, 16 in common and 4 additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages, 3 in common and 9
additional
|
3 languages,
all in common
|
|
|
Reachability
type
|
|||
|
SBOM
|
Yes.
No information available
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source
SAST
(languages)
|
12,
10 in common and 2 additional
|
13,
10 in common and 3 additional
|
|
|
Source
SAST
(frameworks)
|
No information available |
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IaC
|
6,
4 in common and 2 additional
|
4,
3 in common and 1 additional
|
11,
7 in common and 4 additional
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type
of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of
binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
No |
||
|
API security
testing
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets
types, 6 in common and 9 additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack
vectors and secrets
exploitability
|
6 secrets
types, 5 in common and 1 additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
3 functions, 1
in common and 2 additional
|
|
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
|||
| Regions | |||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Arnica
|
|
SCM
|
6,
4 in common and 2 additional
|
4,
all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
2, all in common |
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
None |
||
|
CI/CD
|
None
|
||
|
SCA
|
|||
|
Container
|
|||
|
SAST
|
|||
|
DAST
|
None |
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
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 28, 2025.
More like Arnica
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.