Endor Labs
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Endor Labs'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
|
Endor Labs
|
|
Focus
|
Software Supply Chain Security
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
185 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 37%, IT 6%, sales 17%,
marketing 5%, operations 4% and others 31%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+18%, +46%, +157%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
IN, NL and US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
IN and US | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.8 from 8 reviews over 1 year on G2
and Gartner
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
14K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Forrester, Gartner, IDC and Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2021
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$188M USD in 5 rounds from 20 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
5M to 50M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
SOC 2 Type II
|
|
|
Bug bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
27K per month. Top 3: 19% US, 16% NL,
14% NO. Others 51%
|
|
|
Authority
|
32 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation, e-books, reports,
solution brief, videos and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 4 in common
and 9 additional
|
7 documentation sections, 4 in common
and 3 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 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | Azure | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
30-day free trial and PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplace and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (core, pro, patches). None
transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Per purchase order
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Annually
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
AI security and SCA
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
5 users
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Users
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Endor Labs
|
|
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, response and support | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99.9% per month
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
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, 5 in common and 62
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
7 standards, 5 in common and 2
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools and AI
|
|
|
False positives
|
3.44 times better
|
5.41 times better
|
17% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
5.13 times better
|
14.77 times better
|
5% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 3 in common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
3, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Endor Labs
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
2 functionalities, 1 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
3 sources, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v3.0, EPSS, KEV and SSVC
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house and External (Semgrep for
SAST)
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 13 in common and 10
additional
|
16 package managers, 13 in common and 3
additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages, 5 in common and 7
additional
|
8 languages, 5 in common and 3
additional
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Deterministic
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 12 in common and 10
additional
|
16 package managers, 12 in common and 4
additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Containers
|
4 distributions, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
7 distributions, 3 in common and 4
additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12, 11 in common and 1 additional
|
14, 11 in common and 3 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
SAST
|
|
IaC
|
6, 1 in common and 5 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
5 types of binaries, none in common
|
|
DAST
|
No
|
||
|
API security testing
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets types, 3 in common and 12
additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
9 secrets types, 3 in common and 6
additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
2 functions in common | |
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy
information)
|
||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
No
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Endor Labs
|
|
SCM
|
6, 3 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
1 |
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 5 in common and 16 additional
|
5, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native
|
||
|
Container
|
Native | ||
|
SAST
|
1
|
||
|
DAST
|
None
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
1 | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were endorlabs.com and docs.endorlabs.com, which were supplemented by specialized
information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
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.