Comparison between Fluid Attacks and GitLab | Fluid Attacks
GitLab
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to GitLab'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
|
GitLab
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Employees
|
|||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
Maximum of 8.89 based on 2K reviews over 8 years from: G2, Gartner Peer Insights, PeerSpot, Software Advice and TrustRadius.
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research Firms
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
413.5M USD in 7 rounds from 5 investors (8 acquisitions)
|
|
Revenue
|
579K revenue in 2024 with a CAGR of 56%
|
||
|
CVE
|
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide.
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
||
|
Documentation
|
|||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GCP | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes (Code security not included)
|
|
Free trial
|
60-day free trial and PoV
|
||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing drivers
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
GitLab
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
Yes | No |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
Chains vulnerabilities to reveal new, higher-impact ones.
|
No
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Zero-day vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Zero-day vulnerability research continuously
|
No
|
|
SLA
|
Response | ||
|
Accreditations
|
|||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 65 standards, 15 in common and 50 additional.
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
31 standards, 15 in common and 16 additional.
|
|
Detection method
|
|||
|
Remediation
|
5 remediation options, 4 in common and 1 additional.
|
Same, plus 1 remediation option.
|
5 remediation option, 4 in common and 1 additional.
|
|
Outputs
|
5 formats, 4 in common and 1 additional.
|
Same, plus 2 formats.
|
6 formats, 4 in common and 2 additional.
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
GitLab
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
IDE
|
4 functionalities, 3 in common and 1 additional.
|
Same, plus 1 functionality.
|
3 functionalities all in common.
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
SCA
|
16 package managers, 15 in common and 1 additional.
|
||
|
Reachability
|
5 languages, 2 in common and 3 additional.
|
2 languages, all in common.
|
|
|
SBOM
|
|||
|
Containers
|
4 distributions, 3 in common and 1 additional.
|
13 distributions, 3 in common and 9 additional. |
|
|
Source SAST (languages)
|
17 languages, 15 in common and 2 additional.
|
25 languages, 15 in common and 10 additional.
|
|
|
Source SAST (frameworks)
|
5 frameworks, none in common.
|
5 frameworks, none in common. |
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary.
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries.
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
10 attack surfaces, 6 in common and 4 additional.
|
9 attack surfaces, 6 in common and 3 additional. |
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets types, 7 in common and 8 additional.
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability.
|
135 secrets types, 7 in common and 128 additional.
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, all in common.
|
4 functions, 3 in common and 1 additional.
|
|
|
Fast and automatic
|
|||
|
Open source
|
Not applicable
|
MIT. Partially equivalent to the paid version.
|
|
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and on-premise
|
||
| Regions | |||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Pending
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
GitLab
|
|
SCM integrations
|
4 integrations, 1 in common and 3 additional.
|
1 integration in common.
|
|
|
Binary repositories integrations
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing integrations
|
3 integrations, 2 in common and 1 additional.
|
9 integrations, 2 in common and 7 additional. |
|
|
ChatOps integrations
|
None |
None
|
3 integrations. |
|
IDE integrations
|
15 integrations, 2 in common and 13 additional. |
||
|
CI/CD integrations
|
32 integrations, 4 in common and 28 additional.
|
4 integrations, all in common.
|
|
|
SCA integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
Native scanner and 8 integrations. |
|
|
Container integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
Native scanner and 3 integrations. |
|
|
SAST integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
Native scanner and 5 integrations. |
|
|
DAST integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
Native scanner and 3 integrations. |
|
|
IAST integrations
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud Integrations
|
3 integrations.
|
None
|
|
|
CSPM integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
1 integration. | |
|
Secrets integrations
|
Native scanner (included, no integration needed)
|
Native scanner and 1 integration. |
|
|
Compliance integrations
|
None
|
None
|
1 integration.
|
References were last checked on Jan 22, 2025.
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.