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.
This comparison focuses exclusively on the product itself, even though it belongs to a larger parent
company. All information collected is based on the product’s technical, functional, and theoretical
capabilities, not on attributes of the parent company.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
GHAS
|
|
Focus
|
In-house scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.62 from 11 reviews over 2 years on
PeerSpot
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) | |
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Forrester, Gartner and IDC
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2020
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
1,992 CVEs reported to MITRE by GitHub
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
CSA STAR Level 1
|
|
|
Bug bounty
|
Yes
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
Indeterminable (no information for this
product alone)
|
|
|
Authority
|
Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) | ||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
GitHub - Discovered and third-party
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, customer stories, data sheets,
documentation, e-books, videos, webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 3 in common
and 10 additional
|
3 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
Forum with top leader members by GitHub
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
10 on-demand live security education
courses by GitHub (subscription-based)
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | None | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
30-day free trial and PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales and public web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
2 plans (GitHub Secret Protection,
GitHub Code Security). All transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
SAST, SCA and Secrets
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 author
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Authors
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
19 + 30 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No | ||
| Free support |
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
GHAS
|
|
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
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability
research by GitHub
|
|
SLA
|
Response and availability | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99.9% per Q
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Accreditations
|
CNA
|
||
|
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
|
9 standards, 5 in common and 4
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
False positives
|
1.78 times better
|
3.37 times better
|
21% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
2.5 times better
|
9.06 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
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
3 functionalities, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, none in common
|
7 sources, none in common
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v4.0 and EPSS | ||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 16 in common and 7
additional
|
26 package managers, 16 in common and 10 additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 15 in common and 7
additional
|
26 package managers, 15 in common and 11 additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
3 functions, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
1 function in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
Yes
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no information available)
|
||
| Regions |
EU and US
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
3.7 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
GHAS
|
|
SCM
|
6, 1 in common and 5 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
|
21, 1 in common and 19 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native
|
||
|
Container
|
None | ||
|
SAST
|
Native
|
||
|
DAST
|
None
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 16, 2025. The primary source of information was docs.github.com, which was 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.