Prancer
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Prancer'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
|
Prancer
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Headcount
|
|||
|
Headcount
Distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount
Growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
Same
|
||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
No
reviews
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
No
information available
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
257 CVEs
reported to
MITRE, ranked in the top 10
CVE labs
worldwide
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
|
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II | ||
|
Bug Bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
database
|
No information available
|
||
|
Content
|
|||
|
Knowledge
base
|
13 KB sections, 3
in common and 10 additional
|
3 KB sections, all
in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync
training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async
training
|
3 product
use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | Azure | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Open Demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
|
|
Minimum
term
|
|||
|
Minimum payment
period
|
|||
|
Minimum
capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum
scope
|
1 group
|
1 author
|
1 application
and 100 resources
|
|
Pricing
drivers
|
Application
and resources
|
||
|
Minimum monthly
payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Prancer
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
Yes. Automated PTaaS
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SLA
|
No | ||
|
Min
availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
None
|
|
|
After-sale
guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not
applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Endpoint
control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel
control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 18 in common and 49 additional
|
All requirements from
the same standards
|
|
|
Detection method
|
|||
|
Remediation
|
5, 3 in
common and 2 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
3, all
in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5,
2 in common and 3 additional
|
Same,
plus 2
|
4,
2 in common and 2 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Prancer
|
|
ASPM
|
|||
|
API
|
|||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 2 in
common and 3 additional
|
Same, plus 1
functionality
|
3 functionalities,
2 in common and 1 additional
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
sources
|
4 sources
|
No information available
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority
criteria
|
Same
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner
origin
|
|||
|
SCA
|
Yes. No
information available
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
Yes. No
information available
|
|
|
Reachability
type
|
|||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source
SAST
(languages)
|
12,
10 in common and 2 additional
|
18, 10 in common
and 8 additional
|
|
|
Source
SAST
(frameworks)
|
22, none in common
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
Custom rules for
test
|
|
IaC
|
6,
3 in common and 3 additional
|
4,
1 in common and 3 additional
|
5, 4 in
common and 1 additional
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type
of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of
binaries
|
Yes. No
information available
|
|
DAST
|
Yes. No information available |
||
|
API security
Testing
|
No
|
4 types
of APIs, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes | ||
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets
types, 5 in common and 10 additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack
vectors and secrets
exploitability
|
5 secrets
types, all in common
|
|
AI
|
4 functions,
2 in common and 2 additional
|
2 functions,
all in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
MPL-2.0
license, partially equivalent
to the paid version
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and
on-premises
|
||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
No
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Prancer
|
|
SCM
|
6,
3 in
common and 3 additional
|
3, all in
common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
2, all in common |
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
21, 1 in common and 20 additional
|
||
|
SCA
|
|||
|
Container
|
None |
||
|
SAST
|
|||
|
DAST
|
|||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in
common
|
||
|
CSPM
|
Native | ||
|
Secrets
|
|||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Oct 30, 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.