JFrog
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to JFrog'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
|
JFrog
|
|
Focus
|
Built-in scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
AI/ML development and deployment,
artifact management, cloud deployment, enterprise IoT management, MLSecOps, release
lifecycle management and tool consolidation
|
|
Headcount
|
2,228 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 32%, IT 10%, sales 11%,
marketing 3%, operations 6% and others 38%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+6%, +14%, +41%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
IL, US, JP, CN, FR, IN, ES and GB
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
IL, IN and US | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
8.51 from 132 reviews over 8 years on
Capterra, G2, Gartner and PeerSpot
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
130K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
451 Research, Forrester, Frost &
Sullivan, IDC, Info-Tech Research Group, GigaOM and Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2008
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$226.5M USD in 6 rounds from 12
investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 0 times and made 8
acquisitions
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
100M to 500M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
87 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
CSA STAR Level 1, ISO/IEC 27001,
ISO/IEC 27701, ISO/IEC 27017, SOC 2 Type II and TISAX
|
|
|
Bug bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
241K per month. Top 3: 28% US, 8% IN,
7% DE. Others 57%
|
|
|
Authority
|
51 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
Discovered and third-party
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, data sheets, documentation,
e-books, infographics, webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 3 in common
and 10 additional
|
3 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
4 live security education courses
(subscription-based)
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
6 product use courses with
certification (subscription-based) and 1 product use course (free)
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its 310 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS, Azure and GCP | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
14-day free trial and PoC
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplaces and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 Plans (pro, enterprise X, enterprise
+). First 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
|
Binary repository, docker hub pulls and
lifecycle management
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
25 GB base consumption
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Consumable storage and developers
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
150 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
JFrog
|
|
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
|
|
SLA
|
Response and availability | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99.9% per month
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
AWS Outposts Ready Product, AWS PrivateLink Ready Product, DevOps ISV Competency and 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
|
5 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
False positives
|
4.21 times better
|
6.62 times better
|
14% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
17.55 times better
|
6.10 times better
|
4% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 2 in common and 3 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
2, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
5, 3 in common and 2 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
JFrog
|
|
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, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
4 sources, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v3.0 and EPSS
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 12 in common and 11
additional
|
21 package managers, 12 in common and 9
additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 11 in common and 11
additional
|
23 package managers, 11 in common and
12 additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No |
|
Containers
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12, 6 in common and 6 additional
|
8, 6 in common and 2 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No information available
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
SCA
|
|
IaC
|
No
|
||
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
14 types of binaries, none in common
|
|
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
|
12 secrets types, 3 in common and 9
additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, none in common
|
1 function
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
Yes
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (multi-tenant) + on-premises
(single-tenant)
|
||
| Regions |
AMER, APAC and EMEA
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
JFrog
|
|
SCM
|
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
Native
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
3, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
4, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 9 in common and 12 additional
|
11, 9 in common and 2 additional
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native
|
||
|
Container
|
Native | ||
|
SAST
|
Native
|
||
|
DAST
|
1
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary source of information was
jfrog.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and
other sources.
More like JFrog
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.