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 on the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Prancer
|
|
Focus
|
CSPM
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
ASM, automated PTaaS, DAST, IaC, SAST
and SCA
|
|
Headcount
|
14 | ||
| Headcount distribution |
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 7%, IT 7%, sales 7%, marketing 14%, operations 7% and others 58%
|
|
| Headcount growth |
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
0%, -33%, -36%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
AU, BD and US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
No reviews
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
2K based on the following: Instagram,
LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
| Research firms |
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2020
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
No information available
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 5M
|
|
| 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%
|
344 per month. Top 3: 39% IN, 23% US,
16% KZ. Others 22%
|
|
|
Authority
|
22 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
No information available
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation 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
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct
|
|
| Marketplaces | Azure | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
30-day free trial
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
| Open demo |
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplace and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (community, premium,
enterprise). None 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
|
Automated PTaaS, CSPM, DAST, IaC and
SCA
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 application and 100 resources
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Application and resources
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
400 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
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
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability
research
|
|
SLA
|
No | ||
|
Minimum 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
|
Employee or freelance
|
|
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
|
18 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools and AI
|
|
|
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
|
Yes
|
||
|
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
|
No information available
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS v3.0
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house
|
||
|
SCA
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
Yes. No information available
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Deterministic
|
||
|
SBOM
|
No
|
||
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
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
|
1
|
|
|
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
|
3 types of APIS, all in common
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
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 (multi-tenant) + on-premises
(single-tenant)
|
||
| 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
|
2 |
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 1 in common and 20 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native
|
||
|
Container
|
None | ||
|
SAST
|
Native
|
||
|
DAST
|
Native
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
3, all in common
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
CSPM
|
Native | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native
|
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
| Bug bounty |
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information
were prancer.io and docs.prancer.io, which were supplemented by specialized
information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
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.