Bright Security
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Bright Security'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
|
Bright
|
|
Focus
|
DAST
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
116 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 22%, IT 13%, sales 9%,
marketing 3%, operations 5% and others 48%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+5%, +3%, +5% | |
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
IL and US | |
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
IL and US | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.71 from 36 reviews over 2 years on G2
and Gartner
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
13K based on the following: Facebook,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2018
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$30.3M USD in 4 rounds from 7 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 15M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
CSA STAR Level 1, 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%
|
45K per month. Top 3: 30% IN, 21% US,
6% NG. Others 43%
|
|
|
Authority
|
40 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation, success stories,
webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 6 in common
and 7 additional
|
7 documentation sections, 6 in common
and 1 additional
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its
10
partners |
|
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
PoC
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales and marketplaces
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
|
Minimum term
|
Annually
|
||
|
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
|
API security testing and DAST
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 scan
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Concurrent parallel scans
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No information available
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Bright
|
|
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
|
No | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
None
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 11 in common and 56
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
13 standards, 11 in common and 2
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 4 in common and 1 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
4, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
4, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Bright
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
1 functionality in common
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
No information available
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
No
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
IaC
|
No
|
||
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
No
|
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack surface types, 5 in common and
2 additional
|
6 attacks surface types, 5 in common
and 1 additional
|
|
|
API security testing
|
No
|
4 types of APIs, 3 in common and 1
additional
|
6 types of APIs, 3 in common and 3
additional
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
1 function in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (multi-tenant) + on-premises
(single-tenant)
|
||
| Regions |
CA, EU and US
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Bright
|
|
SCM
|
None
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, all in common
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
1 |
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 7 in common and 14 additional
|
8, 7 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
SCA
|
None
|
||
|
Container
|
None |
||
|
SAST
|
1
|
||
|
DAST
|
Native
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
None
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were brightsec.com and docs.brightsec.com, which were supplemented by specialized
information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Bright Security
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.