Arnica
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to Arnica’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 | Arnica |
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Native ASPM with in-house scanners |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | 53 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Engineering 21%, IT 6%, sales 9%, marketing 2%, operations 6% and others 56% |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | 0%, +23%, +83% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | US |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 10 from 9 reviews over 2 years on G2 and Gartner |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 7K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Frost & Sullivan and IDC |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2021 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $7M USD in 2 rounds from 5 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 10M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 276 CVEs reported to MITRE , ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | 5K per month. Top 3: 86% US, 5% CA, 2% RU. Others 7% |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | 26 out of 100 |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | None |
| Content | Blog , documentation , e-books , glossary , reports, success stories , videos , webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, case studies, documentation, news, podcast and webinars |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 4 in common and 9 additional | Same | 4 documentation sections, all in common |
| Community | Forum | Same | No |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | No |
| Async training | 3 product use courses , all free | Same | No |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS, Azure and GitHub |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | 14-day free trial |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales, marketplace and public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 3 plans (Team, business and enterprise). All transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | Monthly |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPM , binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: API security testing , PTaaS, RE and SCR | IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1 identity |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Identities |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Arnica |
| PTaaS | No | Yes | No |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | No |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | No |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | Not applicable |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | None | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | None |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | Availability and support |
| Minimum availability | >=99.95% per minute LTM | Same | >=99.9% per month |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | No |
| Accreditations | CNA and Penetration testing by CREST | Same | None |
| Hacker certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | 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 | 5 standards, all in common |
| Detection method | Automated tools | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | Automated tools and AI |
| False positives | 7.54 times better | 11.86 times better | 8% F0.5 score per quantity |
| False negatives | 11.86 times better | 34.09 times better | 2% F2.0 score per severity |
| Remediation | 5Â , 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| Outputs | 5Â , 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 4, 3 in common and 1 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Arnica |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same , plus 1 functionality | No |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Does not break the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources | Same | No information available |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | CVSS, EPSS and KEV |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house and External (Opengrep for SAST) |
| SCA | 23 package managers , 16 in common and 7 additional | Same | 20 package managers, 16 in common and 4 additional |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages , 3 in common and 9 additional | Same | 3 languages, all in common |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Deterministic |
| SBOM | 22 package managers , 13 in common and 9 additional | Same | 20 package managers, 13 in common and 7 additional |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | Yes |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| **Source SAST ** **(languages) ** | 12 , 10 in common and 2 additional | Same | 13, 10 in common and 3 additional |
| **Source SAST ** (frameworks) | 22 | Same | No information available |
| Custom rules | No | No | SAST |
| IaC | 6Â , 4 in common and 2 additional | 4Â , 3 in common and 1 additional | 11, 7 in common and 4 additional |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same , plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types | Same | No |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| ASM | No | No | No |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types , 6 in common and 9 additional | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | 6 secrets types, 5 in common and 1 additional |
| AI | 3 functions , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 3 functions, 1 in common and 2 additional |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | No |
| Open-source | MPL-2.0 license , totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | No |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (multi-tenant) + on-premises (single-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | US |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Arnica |
| SCM | 6 , 4 in common and 2 additional | Same | 4, all in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | 5 |
| Ticketing | 3 , 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 2, all in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 2 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | Native |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | Native |
| DAST | Native | Same | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 3 | Same | None |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | Native |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
Tip
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information were arnica.io and docs.arnica.io, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
**More like Arnica **
Tip
Free trialSearch 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 .
Last updated on