Comparison between Fluid Attacks and Endor Labs | Fluid Attacks

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
AI-Powered PTaaS on top of Native ASPM with In-house scanners
Extras
None
None
None
Headcount

170

Headcount distribution
Headcount growth
Headquarters
Countries
 CO and US
IN, NL and US
Reputation
9.8 from 160 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch
Same
10 from 7 reviews over 1 year on G2 and Gartner
Followers
20K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Same
14K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Research Firms
None
None
Founded
2001
Funding
Bootstrapped
Same
$188M USD in 5 rounds from 20 investors
Acquisitions
None
None
None
Revenue
5M to 50M
CVE
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
Compliance
Bug bounty
No
Visits
19K per month. Top 3: 50% NL, 17% CO, 6% US and others 27%
20K per month. Top 3: 48% US, 10% UK, 7% IN and others 35%
Authority
Vulnerability database
None
Content
Knowledge base
13 KB sections, 4 in common and 9 additional
7 KB sections, 4 in common and 3 additional
Community
No
Sync training
No
No
No
Async training
No
Distribution
Direct or with any of its 14 partners
Same
Direct or with any of its partners
Marketplaces Azure 
Freemium
No
No
No
Free trial
Demo
Pricing
Pricing tiers
3 plans (core, pro, patches). None transparent
Minumum commit
Minimum payment period
Minimum capabilities
Same plus: PTaaS, RE and SCR
Minimum scope
Pricing drivers
Minimum monthly payment
No information available

Service
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
Endor Labs
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
Response and support
Min 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
Endpoint control
Not applicable
Total
Not applicable
Channel control
Not applicable
Total
Not applicable
Standards
Some requirements from 65 standards, 5 in common and 60 additional
All requirements from the same standards
7 standards, 5 in common and 2 additional
Detection method
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
Yes
No
API
IDE
functionalities, 1 in common and 4 additional
Same, plus 1 functionality
2 functionalities, 1 in common and 1 additional
CLI
CI/CD
Vulnerability sources
4 sources, 2 in common and 2 additional
sources, 2 in common and 1 additional
Priority criteria
CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS and KEV
Custom prioritization
No
Scanner origin
In-house and External (Semgrep for SAST)
SCA
24 package managers, 13 in common and 9 additional
16 package managers, 13 in common and 3 additional
AI security
No
Reachability
12 languages, 5 in common and 7 additional
8 languages, 5 in common and 3 additional
Reachability type
SBOM
22 package managers, 12 in common and 10 additional
16 package managers, 12 in common and 4 additional
Malware detection
Yes
Yes
Autofix on components
No
No
Containers
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
IaC
6, 1 in common and 5 additional
4
1 in common
Binary SAST
1 type of binary, none in common
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
5 type of binaries, none in common
DAST

No

API security testing
No
No
IAST
No
No
No
CSPM
Yes
No
Environments
Left & Right (included)
Same
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
functions, 1 in common and 3 additional
1 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
Endor Labs
SCM
6, 3 in common and 3 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, 1 in common and 2 additional

1 in common

CI/CD
20, 5 in common and 15 additional
5, all in common
SCA
Container

Native

SAST

1

DAST

None

IAST
None
None
None
Cloud
None
CSPM
1
Secrets
Remediation
None
None
None
Bug bounty
None
None
None
Vulnerability management
None
None
None
Compliance
None
None

Notes
 References were last checked on Aug 26, 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.