Socket Security
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Socket Security'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
|
Socket Security
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
|||
|
Headcount
Distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount
Growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
Same
|
||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
10.00 from 2 reviews over 1 year
on G2
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$64.6M
USD in 3 rounds from 2 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
Acquired 0 times and made 1
acquisition
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
257 CVEs
reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10
CVE labs
worldwide
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
|
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II | ||
|
Bug Bounty
|
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
database
|
None
|
||
|
Content
|
Same
|
||
|
Knowledge
base
|
13 KB sections, 6
in common and 7 additional
|
6 KB
section, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
|||
|
Sync
training
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Async
training
|
3 product
use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | GCP and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
2 plans (team, enterprise
+ business). First transparent
|
|
Minimum
commit
|
|||
|
Minimum payment
period
|
|||
|
Minimum
capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum
scope
|
1 group
|
1 author
|
|
|
Pricing
drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly
payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Socket Security
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
Yes | 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 information available | ||
|
Min
availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
No information available
|
|
|
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 65 standards
|
All requirements from
the same standards
|
No information available
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools and AI
|
||
|
Remediation
|
5, 2 in
common and 3 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
2, all
in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5,
1 in common and 4 additional
|
Same,
plus 2
|
1 in
common
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Socket Security
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
API
|
|||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 1 in
common and 24 additional
|
Same, plus 1
functionality
|
1 functionality in common
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
sources
|
14 sources
|
No information available
|
|
|
Priority
criteria
|
Same
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner
origin
|
|||
|
SCA
|
24 package managers, 12 in
common and 12 additional
|
13 package
managers, 12 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
SCA (AI
models)
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages, 9 in common
and 3 additional
|
11 languages, 9 in
common and 2 additional
|
|
|
Reachability
type
|
|||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 2 in
common and 20 additional
|
6 package
managers, 2 in common and 4 additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No |
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
Custom
rules for security
policies
|
|
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
|
Yes.
No information available
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
Environments
|
Left & Right
(included)
|
Same
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack
vectors and secrets
exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
4 functions,
1 in common and 3 additional
|
1 function in
common
|
|
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and on-premises
|
||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Socket Security
|
|
SCM
|
4, all in common
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 2 in common and 1
additional
|
4, 2 in common and 2 additional |
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
5, 1 in common and 4 additional |
|
|
CI/CD
|
20, 3 in
common and 18 additional
|
5, 3 in common
and 2 additional
|
|
|
SCA
|
|||
|
Container
|
None |
||
|
SAST
|
None |
||
|
DAST
|
None |
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
None |
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Jun 13, 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.