Comparison between Fluid Attacks and GitHub Advanced Security | Fluid Attacks

GitHub Advanced Security

How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to GitHub Advanced Security's (GHAS)? 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
GHAS 
Focus
AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with In-house scanners
Extras
None
None
Headcount

6,473

Headcount distribution
Headcount growth
Headquarters
Countries
CO and US
Reputation
9.84 from 109 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch
Same
9.23 from 8K reviews over 9 years on G2, Gartner, GetApp
PeerSpot and
TrustRadius
Followers
18K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
Same
8.8M based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
Research Firms
None
None
Founded
2001
Funding
Bootstrapped
Same
$350M USD in 4 rounds from 7 investors
Acquisitions
None
None
Acquired 1 time and made 8 acquisitions
Revenue
CVE
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide
1,992 CVEs reported to MITRE
Compliance
Bug bounty
Yes
Visits
20K per month. Top 3: 21% CO, 16% US, 10% IN and others 53%
806M per month. Top 3: 16% US, 10% IN, 8% CN and others 66%
Authority
Vulnerability database
Content
Knowledge base
13 KB sections, 3 in common and 10 additional
3 KB sections, all in common
Community
Forum
Forum with top leader members
Sync training
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
Free trial
Demo
Pricing
Pricing tiers
2 plans (team, enterprise). All transparent
Minimum commit
Minimum payment period
Minimum capabilities

Same plus: PTaaSRE and SCR

Minimum scope
Pricing drivers
Minimum monthly payment

Service
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
GHAS
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
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
SLA
 Response and availability
Min availability
>=99.95% per minute LTM
>=99.9% unknown granularity per Q
After-sale guarantees
No
Yes
Accreditations
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
4 standards, 3 in common and 1 additional
Detection method
False positives
2.77 times better
4.36 times better
21% F0.5 score per quantity
False negatives
3.50 times better
10.07 times better
8% F2.0 score per severity
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
3, 1 in common and 2 additional

Product
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
GHAS
ASPM
Yes
No
API
IDE
5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3 additional
Same, plus 1 functionality
3 functionalities, 2 in common and 1 additional
CLI
CI/CD
Vulnerability sources
Same
7 sources, none in common
Priority criteria
CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS and KEV
CVSS v4.0
Custom prioritization
Customizable priority score Same
No
Scanner origin
SCA
24 package managers, 14 in common and 10 additional
17 package managers, 14 in common and 3 additional
AI security
No
No
Reachability
12 languages
No
Reachability type
Same
No
SBOM
22 package managers, 15 in common and 7 additional
17 package managers, 15 in common and 2 additional
Malware detection
Yes
Yes
No
Autofix on components
No
No
Containers
No
Source SAST (languages)
12, 9 in common and 3 additional
11, 9 in common and 2 additional
Source SAST (frameworks)
22, 13 in common and 9 additional

28, 13 in common and 15 additional

Custom rules
No
No
No
IaC
6
4
No
Binary SAST
1 type of binary
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
No
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
4 secrets types, 3 in common and 1 additional
AI
4 functions, 1 in common and 3 additional
1 function in common
Open-source
Not applicable
No
Provisioning as Code
Deployment
Regions
EU and US
Status
Incidents

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

1 in common

ChatOps
None
None

None

IDE
3, 1 in common and 2 additional

1 in common

CI/CD
20, 1 in common and 19 additional
1 in common
SCA
Container

None

SAST
DAST

None

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

Notes
 References were last checked on Jul 01, 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.