Jit
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Jit'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 on the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Jit
|
|
Focus
|
Native ASPM with external scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
135 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 19%, IT 4%, sales 10%,
marketing 5%, operations 7% and others 55%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+14%, +23%, +39%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
US | |
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
BD, IL, IN and US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.88 from 51 reviews over 2 year on
Capterra, G2 and Gartner
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
5K based on the following: Facebook,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2021
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$38.5M USD in 1 rounds from 5 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 15M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
SOC 2 Type II | |
|
Bug bounty
|
No | ||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
47K per month. Top 3: 18% US, 13% ID,
8% IN. Others 61%
|
|
|
Authority
|
34 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation and webinars
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 3 in common
and 10 additional
|
9 documentation sections, 3 in common
and 6 additional
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS, GCP and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
14-day free trial
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplaces and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
2 plans (growth, enterprise). First
transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Annually
|
||
|
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
|
ASPM, Containers, CSPM, IaC, SAST, SCA
and secrets
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
5 developers
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Developers
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
250 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Jit
|
|
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
|
None
|
|
SLA
|
Availability | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99.5% per month
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
Security ISV Competency
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee or freelance
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 12 in common and 55
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
16 standards, 12 in common and 4
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
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
|
Jit
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
4 functionalities, 3 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
3 sources, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
Risk score
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
External (Trivy for Containers; AWS
Security Hub and Prowler for CSPM; ZAP for DAST; KICS and Kubescape for Iac; GoSec and
Semgrep for SAST; Grype and Syft for SBOM; Nancy, NPM-Audit and OSV for SCA; GitLeaks
and TruffleHog for Secrets)
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 8 in common and 15
additional
|
8 package managers, all in common
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
Yes. No information available
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Deterministic
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 17 in common and 5
additional
|
29 package managers, 17 in common and
12 additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Containers
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12, 11 in common and 1 additional
|
14, 11 in common and 3 additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
SAST
|
|
IaC
|
6, 2 in common and 4 additional
|
5, 2 in common and 3 additional
|
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack surface types, 2 in common and
5 additional
|
3 attack surface types, 2 in common
and 1 additional
|
|
|
API security testing
|
No
|
4 types of APIs, 3 in common and 1
additional
|
3 types of APIs, all in common
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets types, 3 in common and 12
additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
5 secret types, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
2 functions, all in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes | ||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (no tenancy information)
|
||
| Regions |
US
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
0.3 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Jit
|
|
SCM
|
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
4, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
3, all in common
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 4 in common and 17 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native powered by Nancy, NPM-Audit and OVS
|
||
|
Container
|
Native powered by Trivy | ||
|
SAST
|
Native powered by GoSec and Semgrep
|
||
|
DAST
|
Native powered by ZAP
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in common
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
CSPM
|
Native powered by Prowler | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native powered by Gitleaks and
Trufflehog
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
Native
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were jit.io and docs.jit.io, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering
sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Jit
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.