Conviso
Last updated: Jun 30, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Conviso'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 | Conviso |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Native ASPM with in-house and external scanners |
| Extras | None | None | MPT, PTaaS, red team and WAF |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 78 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40%, IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 13%, IT 41%, sales 8%, marketing 3%, operations 6% and others 29% |
| Headcount growth | +14%, +15%, -1% | Same | 0%, -6%, -14% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | BR |
| Countries | AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | BR |
| Reputation | 9.44 from 228 reviews over 8 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 8.1 from 39 reviews over 9 years on Gartner and GetApp |
| Followers | 22K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 16K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Frost & Sullivan |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2008 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | No information available |
| Acquisitions | None | None | Acquired 0 times and made 1 acquisition |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 13M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher |
| Compliance | GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017:2015, ISO/IEC 27018:2019, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, PCI DSS, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | 9K per month. Top 3: 54% BR, 19% US, 14% MX. Others 13% |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 29 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, demos, documentation, success stories, use cases, videos and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections, 4 in common and 9 additional | Same | 11 documentation sections, 4 in common and 7 additional |
| Community | Forum | Same | Chat(Discord) |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | 1 training program |
| Async training | 3 product use courses, all free | Same | No |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS and Azure |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | No |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and marketplace |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 1 plan (Developers). Not transparent. |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: AI SAST, API security testing, MAST, PTaaS, RE and SCR | ASPM |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1 author |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Authors |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No information available |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Conviso |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | MPT and PTaaS powered by AI |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No information available |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | Yes |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | No information available |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | Yes |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | No information available |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | Scanner-based zero-day vulnerability detection | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research powered by AI |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy, availability and response | No information available |
| Minimum availability | 99.95% per year | Same | No information available |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | No |
| Accreditations | CNA, Penetration Testing by CREST and OpenSSF Gold Badge | Same | PCI ASV |
| Pentester certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | 10 from 10 different types |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | No information available |
| Channel control | No | Total | No information available |
| 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, automated tools and human intelligence | AI, automated tools and human intelligence |
| Remediation | 5, 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 1 | 3, all in common |
| Outputs | 5, 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 2 | 4, 3 in common and 1 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Conviso |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | GraphQL with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities, 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 1 functionality | 4 functionalities, 2 in common and 2 additional |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Breaks the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 18 sources | Same | No information available |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS and KEV | Same | No information available |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No information available |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house and External (Trivy for Containers, Checkov for IaC, Semgrep for SAST, OSV Scanner for SCA and Gitleaks for Secrets) |
| SCA | 19 package managers, 16 in common and 3 additional | Same | 17 package managers, 16 in common and 1 additional |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 22 package managers, 12 in common and 10 additional | Same | 17 package managers, 12 in common and 5 additional |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions, all in common | Same | 15 distributions, 4 in common and 11 additional |
| Source SAST (languages) | 12, 11 in common and 1 additional | Same | 15, 11 in common and 4 additional |
| Source SAST (frameworks) | 23 | Same | Yes. No information available |
| Custom rules | No | No | No |
| IaC | 6, 3 in common and 3 additional | 2, none in common | 3, all in common |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same, plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types, 1 in common and 6 additional | Same | 1 attack surface type in common |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs, 3 in common and 1 additional | 3 types of APIs, all in common |
| MAST | No | Yes | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| Secrets | 142 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | Yes. No information available |
| AI | 4 functions, 2 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 1 function | 4 functions, 2 in common and 2 additional |
| AI SAST | No | Yes | No |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source | No | No | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (multi-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 3 per year | Same | No incidents |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Conviso |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6, 2 in common and 4 additional | Same | 2, all in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 5, 2 in common and 3 additional |
| ChatOps | None | None | 2 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21, 8 in common and 13 additional | Same | 8, all in common |
| SCA | Native | Same | Native powered by OSV Scanner |
| Container | Native | Same | Native powered by Trivy |
| SAST | Native | Same | Native powered by Semgrep |
| DAST | Native | Same | Native |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 1 in common | Same | 1 in common |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | Native powered by Gitleaks |
| 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 2026-06-24. The primary sources of information were convisoappsec.com and docs.convisoappsec.com, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Conviso
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 Essential plan. If you prefer the Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' pentesting team, fill out this contact form.
Tags
ai-ptaasapiaspmcomparecontainersdastexploitationiacmcpmptptaassastsbomscascrsecretsthreat-modeling