ThreatModeler
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to ThreatModeler'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
|
ThreatModeler
|
|
Focus
|
Automated threat modeling
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
IaC scanning
|
|
Headcount
|
111 | ||
| Headcount distribution |
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 28%, IT 10%, sales 23%,
marketing 5%, operations 3% and others 31%
|
|
| Headcount growth |
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+22%, +44%, +82%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
IN and US
|
|
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
10 from 2 review over 1 year on
PeerSpot
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
20K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
| Research firms |
None
|
None
|
Gartner
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2010
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$60M USD in 1 round from 1 investor
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
1M to 23M
|
|
| CVEs as CNA Researcher |
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
ISO/IEC 27001 | |
| Bug bounty |
No
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K
per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59%
|
4K per month. Top 3: 47% IN, 25% UK, 8%
US. Others 20%
|
|
|
Authority
|
30 out of 100
|
||
| Public vulnerability DB |
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, case studies, data sheets,
e-books, videos, webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
No
|
||
|
Community
|
Chat (Discord, Reddit and Slack) and
forum
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct or with any of its 4 partners
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
No
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
| Open demo |
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales and marketplace
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
|
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
|
Automate threat modeling
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 license
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Licenses
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No information available
|
||
|
Free support
|
No information available
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
ThreatModeler
|
|
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
|
No
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
Employee
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards, 5 in common and 62
additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
8 standards, 5 in common and 3
additional
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools, AI and human intelligence
|
None
|
|
|
Remediation
|
Same, plus 1
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 3 in common and 2
additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
4, 3 in common and 1 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
ThreatModeler
|
|
ASPM
|
No
|
||
|
API
|
Yes. no information available
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 1 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
1 functionality in common
|
|
CLI
|
No
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
No
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
None
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
None
|
||
|
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
|
6, 2 in common and 4 additional
|
4, 1 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
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
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors
and secrets exploitability
|
No
|
|
|
AI
|
4 functions, none in common
|
2, none in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
No
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
| Provisioning as code |
No
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS (multi-tenant)
|
||
| Regions |
No information available
|
||
|
Status
|
No
|
||
|
Incidents
|
No information available
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
ThreatModeler
|
|
SCM
|
None
|
||
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
3, 2 in common and 1 additional
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
None |
|
IDE
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 4 in common and 17 additional
|
4, all in common
|
|
|
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
|
1
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 26, 2025. The primary source of information was
threatmodeler.com, which was 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.