Mandiant
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Mandiant'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
|
Mandiant
|
|
Focus
|
Incident response
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
AI security, ASM, managed defense, MDR
research and threat hunting, security validation and threat intelligence
|
|
Headcount
|
1,354 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 11%, IT 22%, sales 8%,
operations 3% and others 56%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+1%, +2%, +4%
|
|
| Headquarters |
CO and US
|
US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
8.98 from 43 reviews over 7 years on
Capterra, Gartner, PeerSpot and TrustRadius
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
341K based on the following: Facebook,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Everest Group, Forrester, Frost &
Sullivan, IDC, Info-Tech Research Group and Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2004
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$70M USD in 2 rounds from 4 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 1 time and made 2 acquisitions
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
100M to 500B
|
|
| CVEs as CNA Researcher |
8 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27017, ISO/IEC
27018, PCI DSS compliance, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
|
|
Bug
bounty
|
Yes
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
51K per month. Top 3: 29% IN, 17% US,
7% TH. Others 47%
|
|
|
Authority
|
39 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, data sheets, documentation,
e-books, podcasts, reports, testimonials, videos, webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
No information available
|
||
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
18 Live security education courses
(subscription-based)
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
9 security education courses
(subscription-based and free)
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its 3 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | Azure and GCP | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
PoC
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales and marketplaces
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
No information available
|
|
Minimum term
|
Annually
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Annually
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
Incident response |
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
No information available | |
|
Pricing drivers
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Mandiant
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No. MPT
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No information available | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No information availability
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
No information available
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability
research
|
|
SLA
|
Availability | ||
|
Minimum availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
>=99.5% per month
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No |
|
Accreditations
|
CNA, Cyber Security Incident
Response by CREST, Intelligence Led Penetration Testing by CREST and Penetration
Testing by CREST
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
484 from 58 different types
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
No information available
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
No information available
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 3 in common and 64
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
3 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools, AI and human
intelligence
|
|
|
Remediation
|
5, 1 in common and 4 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
1 in common
|
|
Outputs
|
Same, plus 2
|
No information available
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Mandiant
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON | ||
|
IDE
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
No
|
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Does not break the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, none in common
|
1 source
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v3.0, EPSS, KEV and MVE (Mandiant
Vulnerability Enumeration)
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house | ||
|
SCA
|
No
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No |
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No
|
||
|
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
|
Yes
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, none in common
|
1 function
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes | ||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
No | ||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy
information)
|
||
| Regions |
AS, EU and US
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
0.2 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Mandiant
|
|
SCM
|
None
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
None
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
None
|
||
|
SCA
|
None
|
||
|
Container
|
None | ||
|
SAST
|
None
|
||
|
DAST
|
None
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in common
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
None
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
2
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 26, 2025. The primary source of information was
cloud.google.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social
media, and other sources.
More like Mandiant
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.