Comparison between Fluid Attacks and Codacy | Fluid Attacks

Codacy

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

71

Headcount Distribution
Headcount Growth
Headquarters
Countries
CO and US
Same
PT and US
Reputation
9.79 from 161 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch
Same
9.37 from 50 reviews over 9 years on Capterra, G2, Gartner and TrustRadius
Followers
20K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Same
28K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
Research firms
None
None
Founded
2001
Funding
Bootstrapped
Same
$29.4M USD in 5 round from 10 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
SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II
Bug Bounty
Visits
19K per month. Top 3: 50% NL, 17% CO, 6% US and others 27%
54K per month. Top 3: 19% US, 13% BR, 10% IN and others 58%
Authority
Vulnerability database
None
Content
Same
Knowledge base
13 KB sections, 5 in common and 8 additional
5 KB sections, all in common
Community
No
Sync training
No
No
No
Async training
No
Distribution
Direct or with any of its 14 partners
Same
Marketplaces AWS and GitHub
Freemium
No
No
Free trial
Demo
Pricing
Pricing tiers
plan
plan
3 plans (team, business, audit). First transparent
Minimum commit
Minimum payment period
Minimum capabilities
Same plus: PTaaS, RE and SCR
Minimum scope
Pricing drivers
Minimum monthly payment

Service
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Codacy
PTaaS
No
No
Reverse engineering
No
Yes 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 information available
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 65 standards, 3 in common and 62 additional
All requirements from the same standards
standards, all in common
Detection method
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
2, 1 in common and 1 additional

Product
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Codacy
ASPM
Yes
API
IDE
functionalities, 4 in common and 1 additional
Same, plus 1 functionality
4 functionalities, all in common
CLI
CI/CD
Vulnerability sources
None
Priority criteria
CVSS v4.0, CVSSFEPSS and KEV
Same
Custom prioritization
No
Scanner origin
External (ZAP for DAST; Checkov for IaC; Semgrep, Bandit, Brakeman, Flawfinder, and Gosec for SAST; Checkov and Semgrep for Secrets; and Trivy for Containers, Secrets and SCA)
SCA
24 package managers, 15 in common and 9 additional
24 package managers, 15 in common and 9 additional
AI security
No
No
Reachability
No
Reachability type
Not applicable
SBOM
22 package managers, 17 in common and 5 additional
24 package managers, 17 in common and 7 additional
Malware detection
Yes
Yes
No
Autofix on components
No
No
No
Containers
distributions, 2 in common and 2 additional
15 distributions, 2 in common and 13 additional
Source SAST (languages)
12, all in common
29, 12 in common and 17 additional
Source SAST (frameworks)
22, 6 in common and 16 additional

7, 6 in common and 1 additional

Custom rules
No
No
No
IaC
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
4, 2 in common and 2 additional
6, all in common
Binary SAST
1 type of binary
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
No
DAST
attack surface types, 3 in common and 4 additional

4 attack surface types, 3 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
No
CSPM
Yes
No
Environments
Left & Right (included)
Same
ASM
No
No
No
Secrets
15 secrets types, 11 in common and 4 additional
Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability
31 secrets types, 11 in common and 20 additional
AI
4 functions, all in common
Open-source
Not applicable
No
Provisioning as Code
Deployment
Regions
Status
Incidents

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

1 in common

ChatOps
None
None

1

IDE
3, all in common

19, 3 in common and 16 additional

CI/CD
20, 3 in common and 17 additional
3, all in common
SCA

Native powered by Trivy

Container

Native powered by Trivy

SAST

Native powered by Semgrep, Bandit, Brakeman, Flawfinder and Golang

DAST

Native powered by ZAP

IAST
None
None
None
Cloud
None
CSPM
None
Secrets

Native powered by Checkov, Semgrep and Trivy

Remediation
None
None
None
Bug bounty
None
None
None
Vulnerability management
None
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.