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	Native ASPM with in-house scanners	AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners	Software Supply Chain Security
Extras	None	None	None
Headcount	143	Same	185
Headcount distribution	Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%	Same	Engineering 37%, IT 6%, sales 17%, marketing 5%, operations 4% and others 31%
Headcount growth	+8%, +10%, -8%	Same	+18%, +46%, +157%
Headquarters	CO and US	Same	IN, NL and US
Countries	AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US	Same	IN and US
Reputation	9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch	Same	9.8 from 8 reviews over 1 year on G2 and Gartner
Followers	20K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube	Same	14K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
Research Firms	None	None	Forrester, Gartner, IDC and Omdia
Founded	2001	Same	2021
Funding	Bootstrapped	Same	$188M USD in 5 rounds from 20 investors
Acquisitions	None	None	None
Revenue	10M to 15M	Same	5M to 50M
CVEs as CNA Researcher	276 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide	Same	Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher
Compliance	SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3	Same	SOC 2 Type II
Bug bounty	Yes	Yes	No
Visits	21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%	Same	27K per month. Top 3: 19% US, 16% NL, 14% NO. Others 51%
Authority	32 out of 100	Same	32 out of 100
Public vulnerability DB	Discovered and third-party	Same	None
Content	Blog, documentation, e-books, glossary, reports, success stories, videos, webinars and white papers	Same	Blog, documentation, e-books, reports, solution brief, videos and white papers
Comprehensive documentation	13 documentation sections, 4 in common and 9 additional	Same	7 documentation sections, 4 in common and 3 additional
Community	Forum	Same	No
Sync training	1 workshop	Same	No
Async training	3 product use courses, all free	Same	No
Distribution	Direct or with any of its 14 partners	Same	Direct or with any of its partners
Marketplaces	AWS	Same	Azure
Freemium	No	No	No
Free trial	21-day free trial	PoV	30-day free trial and Po V
Demo	Yes	Yes	Yes
Open Demo	No	No	No
Pricing	Contact sales, marketplace and public web	Contact sales and public web	Contact sales, marketplace and public web
Pricing tiers	1 plan	1 plan	3 plans (core, pro, patches). None transparent
Minimum term	Monthly	Monthly	Per purchase order
Minimum payment period	Monthly	Monthly	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	Same	5 users
Pricing drivers	Authors	Same	Users
Minimum monthly payment	143 USD	592 USD	No information available
Free implementation	Yes	Yes	No information available
Free support	Yes	Yes	No

Service

Attribute	Essential	Advanced	Endor Labs
PTaaS	No	Yes	No
Reverse engineering	No	Yes	No
Secure code review	No	Yes	No
Pivoting	No	Yes	No
Exploitation	No	Yes	No
Manual reattacks	Not applicable	Unlimited reattacks	Not applicable
Zero-day vulnerabilities	None	Continuous zero-day vulnerability research	None
SLA	Availability	Accuracy, availability and response	Availability, response and support
Min availability	>=99.95% per minute LTM	Same	>=99.9% per month
After-sale guarantees	No	Yes	No
Accreditations	CNA and Penetration Testing by CREST	Same	None
Hacker certifications	Not applicable	202 from 59 different types	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	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	Yes	Yes	No
API	GraphQL with JSON	Same	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	Yes	Yes
CI/CD	Breaks the build	Same	Breaks the build
Vulnerability sources	4 sources, 2 in common and 2 additional	Same	3 sources, 2 in common and 1 additional
Threat model alignment	Yes	Yes	No
Priority criteria	CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS and KEV	Same	CVSS v3.0, EPSS, KEV and SSVC
Custom prioritization	Priority score	Same	No
Scanner origin	In-house	In-house	In-house and External (Semgrep for SAST)
SCA	23 package managers, 13 in common and 10 additional	Same	16 package managers, 13 in common and 3 additional
AI security	No	Yes	Yes
Reachability	12 languages, 5 in common and 7 additional	Same	8 languages, 5 in common and 3 additional
Reachability type	Deterministic	Same	Deterministic
SBOM	22 package managers, 12 in common and 10 additional	Same	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	Same	7 distributions, 3 in common and 4 additional
Source SAST (languages)	12, 11 in common and 1 additional	Same	14, 11 in common and 3 additional
Source SAST (frameworks)	22	Same	No information available
Custom rules	No	No	SAST
IaC	6, 1 in common and 5 additional	4	1 in common
Binary SAST	1 type of binary	Same, plus 2 types of binaries	5 types of binaries, none in common
DAST	7 attack surface types	Same	No
API security testing	No	4 types of APIs	No
IAST	No	No	No
CSPM	Yes	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	Same	2 functions in common
MCP	Yes	Yes	Yes
Open source	MPL-2 license. Totally equivalent to the paid version	Not applicable	No
Provisioning as Code	Yes	Yes	No
Deployment	SaaS	Same	SaaS and on-premises
Regions	US	Same	No information available
Status	Yes	Yes	No
Incidents	4 per year	Same	No information available

Integrations

Attribute	Essential	Advanced	Endor Labs
SCM	6, 3 in common and 3 additional	Same	3, all in common
Binary repositories	None	None	1
Ticketing	3, 1 in common and 2 additional	Same	1 in common
ChatOps	None	None	1
IDE	3, 1 in common and 2 additional	Same	1 in common
CI/CD	21, 5 in common and 16 additional	Same	5, all in common
SCA	Native	Same	Native
Container	Native	Same	Native
SAST	Native	Same	1
DAST	Native	Same	None
IAST	None	None	None
Cloud	3	Same	None
CSPM	Native	Same	1
Secrets	Native	Same	Native
Remediation	None	None	None
Bug bounty	None	None	None
Vulnerability management	None	None	None
Compliance	None	None	1

References were last checked on Dec 03, 2025.

More like Endor Labs

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.

Comparison between Fluid Attacks and Endor Labs | Fluid Attacks

Endor Labs