Comparison between Fluid Attacks and Black Duck | Fluid Attacks

Black Duck

How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Black Duck'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
Black Duck 
Focus
AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with In-house scanners
Extras
None
None
Headcount

1,368

Headcount distribution
Headcount growth
Headquarters
Countries
CO and US
Reputation
9.79 from 161 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch
Same
8.74 from 153 reviews over 8 years on  G2GartnerPeerSpotSoftware Advice and TrustRadius
Followers
20K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Same
85K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Research firms
None
None
Founded
2001
Funding
Bootstrapped
Same
$82M USD in 12 rounds from 15 investors
Acquisitions
None
None
Acquired 1 time and made 4 acquisitions
Revenue
25M to 1B
CVE
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked among the top 10 CVE labs worldwide
53 CVEs reported to MITRE
Compliance
Bug bounty
No
Visits
19K per month. Top 3: 50% NL, 17% CO, 6% US and others 27%
181K per month. Top 322% US, 20% IN, 7% CN and others 51%
Authority
Vulnerability database
Content
Same
Knowledge base
13 KB sections, 7 in common and 6 additional
8 KB sections, 7 in common and 1 additional
Community
Sync training
No
No
No
Async training
Security education platform (subscription-based)
Distribution
Direct or with any of its 14 partners
Same
Direct or with any of its partners
Marketplaces AWS and GCP
Freemium
No
No
No
Free trial
Demo
Pricing
Pricing tiers
1 plan
Minimum commit
Minimum payment period
Minimum capabilities
Same plus: PTaaS, RE and SCR
Minimum scope
Pricing drivers
Minimum monthly payment

Service
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Black Duck
PTaaS
No
Reverse engineering
No
Yes Yes
Secure code review
No
No
Pivoting
No
Exploitation
No
Manual reattacks
Not applicable
Zero-day vulnerabilities
None
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
SLA
Response
Min availability
>=99.95% per minute LTM
No information available
After-sale guarantees
No
No
Accreditations
Hacker certifications
Not applicable
Type of contract
Employee
Same
Endpoint control
Not applicable
Total
No information available
Channel control
Not applicable
Total
No information available
Standards
Some requirements from 65 standards, 14 in common and 51 additional
All requirements from the same standards
23 standards, 14 in common and 9 additional
Detection method
Remediation
5, 3 in common and 2 additional
Same, plus 1
3, all in common
Outputs
5, 4 in common and 1 additional
Same, plus 2
6, 4 in common and 2 additional

Product
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Black Duck
ASPM
Yes
API
IDE
functionalities, 2 in common and 3 additional
Sameplus 1 functionality
functionalities in common and 1 additional
CLI
CI/CD
Vulnerability sources
2 sources, none in common
Priority criteria
CVSS v4.0, CVSSFEPSS and KEV
Same
Custom prioritization
Scanner origin
SCA
24 package managers, 14 in common and 10 additional
27 package managers, 14 in common and 13 additional
AI security
No
No
Reachability
12 languages, 1 in common and 11 additional
1 language in common
Reachability type
SBOM
22 package managers, 11 in common and 11 additional
27 package managers, 11 in common and 16 additional
Malware detection
Yes
Yes
No
Autofix on components
No
No
Containers
Yes. No information available
Source SAST (languages)
12, all in common
29 languages, 12 in common and 17 additional
Source SAST (frameworks)
22, 13 in common and 9 additional

78 frameworks, 13 in common and 65 additional

Custom rules
No
No
IaC
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
8, 7 in common and 1 additional
Binary SAST
1 type of binary in common
Sameplus 2 types of binaries
28 types of binaries, 1 in common and 27 additional
DAST
attack surface types, 5 in common and 2 additional

attack surface types, 5 in common and 1 additional

API security testing
No
types of APIs, 3 in common and 1 additional
3 types of APIs, all in common
IAST
No
No
CSPM
Yes
Environments
Left & Right (included)
Same
ASM
No
No
No
Secrets
15 secrets types, 5 in common and 10 additional
Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability
secrets types, 5 in common and 4 additional
AI
functions, 1 in common and 3 additional
function in common
Open-source
Not applicable
No
Provisioning as Code
No
Deployment
Regions
No information available
Status
No
Incidents
No information available

Integrations
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Black Duck
SCM
4, all in common
Binary repositories
None
None
Ticketing
3, 2 in common and 1 additional

3, 2 in common and 1 additional

ChatOps
None
None

2

IDE
3, 2 in common and 1 additional

11, 2 in common and 7 additional

CI/CD
20, 11 in common and 9 additional
12, 11 in common and 1 additional
SCA
Container

Native and 4 integrations

SAST
DAST
IAST
None
None
Cloud
3, all in common
CSPM
Native and 2 integrations
Secrets
Remediation
None
None
Bug bounty
None
None
1
Vulnerability management
None
None
Compliance
None
None
None

Notes
 References were last checked on Aug 28, 2025.
Free trial message
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.