Comparison between Fluid Attacks and ThreatModeler | Fluid Attacks

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
AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with In-house scanners
Extras
None
None
Headcount

106

Headcount Distribution
Headcount Growth
Headquarters
Countries
CO and US
Same
Reputation
9.8 from 160 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch
Same
8.0 from 1 review over 1 year on PeerSpot
Followers
20K based on the following: FacebookInstagramLinkedInX and YouTube
Same
20K  based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
Research firms
None
None
Founded
2001
Funding
Bootstrapped
Same
$60M USD in 1 round from 1 investor
Acquisitions
None
None
None
Revenue
1M to 23M
CVE
257 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
Compliance
ISO/IEC 27001
Bug Bounty
No
Visits
19K per month. Top 3: 50% NL, 17% CO, 6% US and others 27%
3K per month. Top 3: 48% US, 13% IN, 5% CA and others 34%
Authority
Vulnerability database
None
Content
Knowledge base
No
Community
Chat (Discord, Reddit and Slack) and forum
Sync training
No
Async training
No
Distribution
Direct or with any of its 14 partners
Same
Direct or with any of its 4 partners
Marketplaces AWS
Freemium
No
No
No
Free trial
No
Demo
Open Demo
No
No
Pricing
Pricing tiers
plan
plan
Minimum term
Minimum payment period
Minimum capabilities
Same plus: PTaaS, RE and SCR
Minimum scope
Pricing drivers
Minimum monthly payment

Service
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
ThreatModeler
PTaaS
No
No
Reverse engineering
No
Yes No
Secure code review
No
No
Pivoting
No
No
Exploitation
No
No
Manual reattacks
Not applicable
No
Zero-day vulnerabilities
None
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
No
SLA
No
Min 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
Endpoint control
Not applicable
Total
Not applicable
Channel control
Not applicable
Total
Not applicable
Standards
Some requirements from 67 standards, 3 in common and 64 additional
All requirements from the same standards
8 standards, 2 in common and 5 additional
Detection method
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
Yes
No
API
Yes. no information available
IDE
functionalities, 1 in common and 4 additional
Same, plus 1 functionality
CLI
No
CI/CD
No
Vulnerability sources
None
Threat model alignment
No
Priority criteria
Same
Not applicable
Custom prioritization
No
Scanner origin
None
SCA
No
AI security
No
No
Reachability
No
Reachability type
No
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
functions, none in common
MCP
No
Open-source
Not applicable
No
Provisioning as Code
No
Deployment
Regions
No information available
Status
No
Incidents
No information available

Integrations
Attribute
Essential
Advanced
ThreatModeler
SCM
6
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

CI/CD
20, 4 in common and 16 additional
SCA

None

Container

None

SAST

None

DAST

None

IAST
None
None
None
Cloud
3, all in common
CSPM
None
Secrets

None

Remediation
None
None
None
Bug bounty
None
None
None
Vulnerability management
None
None
Compliance
None
None
None

Notes
 References were last checked on Oct 07, 2025.

More like ThreatModeler
  1. Checkov
  2. Terrascan
  3. Kics

Free trial message
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.