SOOS
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to SOOS'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
|
SOOS
|
|
Focus
|
Native ASPM with in-house scanners and
third-party scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
29 | ||
| Headcount distribution |
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 10%, IT 3%, sales 7%,
operations 14% and others 66%
|
|
| Headcount growth |
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+21%, +26%, +38%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.59 from 41 reviews over 3 years on G2
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
1K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
| Research firms |
None
|
None
|
Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2019
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$6M USD in 2 rounds from 1 investor
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 10M
|
|
| 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 |
Yes
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
11K per month. Top 3: 39% US, 7% RU, 4%
FR. Others 50%
|
|
|
Authority
|
31 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
Third-party
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation, events and news
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 5 in common
and 8 additional
|
5 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
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 | Azure | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes, for public repositories
|
|
Free trial
|
30-day free trial
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
| Open demo |
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales and public web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
2 plans (core, plus). First 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
|
Containers, DAST, SAST and SCA
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
5 developers
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Developers
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
90 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
SOOS
|
|
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
|
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, 8 in common and 59
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
8 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
Automated tools
|
|
|
False positives
|
7.38 times better
|
11.61 times better
|
8% F0.5 score per quantity
|
|
False negatives
|
12.36 times better
|
35.55 times better
|
2% F2.0 score per severity
|
|
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
|
SOOS
|
|
ASPM
|
Yes
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
2 functionalities, 1 in common and 1
additional
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
2 sources, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS, EPSS and KEV
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
Vulnerability ranking
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
In-house and External (ZAP for DAST)
|
||
|
SCA
|
23 package managers, 11 in common and 12
additional
|
15 package managers, 11 in common and 4
additional
|
|
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 9 in common and 13
additional
|
15 package managers, 9 in common and 7
additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
Yes. No information available
|
||
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
No
|
||
|
Source SAST
(frameworks)
|
No
|
||
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
Security standards for SCA
|
|
IaC
|
No
|
||
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack surface types, 4 in common and
3 additional
|
6 attack surface types, 4 in common
and 2 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 |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
No
|
||
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
| Provisioning as code |
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (multi-tenant)
|
||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
SOOS
|
|
SCM
|
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
|
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
|
1 |
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
2, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 11 in common and 10 additional
|
11, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native
|
||
|
Container
|
Native | ||
|
SAST
|
1
|
||
|
DAST
|
Native powered by ZAP
|
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
1
|
||
|
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 26, 2025. The primary sources of information
were soos.io and kb.soos.io, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering
sites, social media, and other sources.
More like SOOS
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.