Bishop Fox
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Bishop Fox'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
|
Bishop Fox
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
MPT, network security and red team
|
|
Employees
|
|||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
10 from 2 reviews over 1 month on Gartner
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$146M
USD in 3 rounds from 5 investors
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs
worldwide
|
None
|
|
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II | |
|
Documentation
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
No
|
||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing drivers
|
No information available
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Bishop Fox
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
||
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
Yes | Yes |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
||
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
||
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
||
|
Zero-day vulnerabilities
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
SLA
|
No information available | ||
|
Accreditations
|
|||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Pending
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 65 standards,
11 in common and 54 additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
|
|
Detection
|
|||
|
Remediation
|
5,
1 in common and 4 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
1 in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5,
2 in common and 3 additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
2, all in common
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Bishop Fox
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
IDE
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
No
|
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
Does not break the build
|
||
|
SCA
|
No
|
||
|
Reachability
|
No
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
Same,
plus 4
|
No
|
|
|
Source SAST (frameworks)
|
No |
||
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type
of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
No |
||
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets
exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Deployment
|
|||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
No
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Bishop Fox
|
|
SCM
|
None
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
None |
||
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
None |
|
IDE
|
None |
||
|
CI/CD
|
None
|
||
|
SCA
|
None |
||
|
Container
|
None |
||
|
SAST
|
None |
||
|
DAST
|
None |
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
None |
||
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Mar 17, 2025.
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.