Escape
Last updated: Jul 3, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Escape'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 | Escape |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered pentesting, Attack Surface Management (ASM) and DAST |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 66 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40%, IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 23%, IT 11%, sales 11%, marketing 6%, operations 3% and others 46% |
| Headcount growth | +14%, +15%, -1% | Same | +29%, +47%, +78% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | FR and US |
| Countries | AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | FR and US |
| Reputation | 9.44 from 228 reviews over 8 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 8.9 from 10 reviews over 3 years on G2 |
| Followers | 22K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 8K based on the following: LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | None |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2020 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $23.8M USD in 4 rounds from 14 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 7M |
| 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 | SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | 37K per month. Top 3: 26% US, 10% IN, 9% FR. Others 55% |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 36 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, checklists, free tools, podcast, reports, success stories and webinars |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections, 8 in common and 5 additional | Same | 10 documentation sections, 7 in common and 3 additional |
| Community | Forum | Same | Chat(Discord) |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | No |
| Async training | 3 product use courses, all free | Same | Security education platform (free) |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its 3 partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| 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 | 3 plans (Up to 15 apps, Up to 60 apps, Up to 120 apps). 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 | AI-powered pentesting, Attack Surface Management (ASM) and DAST |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | Up to 15 scanned applications |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Number of scanned applications |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Escape |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | Yes. Automated AI-PTaaS |
| 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 | Scanner-based zero-day vulnerability detection | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | None |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy, availability and response | Availability, Response and Support |
| Minimum availability | 99.95% per year | Same | 99% per three months |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | Yes |
| Accreditations | CNA, Penetration Testing by CREST and OpenSSF Gold Badge | Same | None |
| Pentester certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | Not applicable |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | No |
| Channel control | No | Total | No |
| Standards | Some requirements from 67 standards, 15 in common and 52 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 21 standards, 15 in common and 6 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, automated tools and human intelligence | AI and automated tools |
| Remediation | 5, none in common | Same, plus 1 | 4, none in common |
| Output | 5, 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2 | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Escape |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same, plus 1 functionality | No |
| 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 | CVSS |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | Risk score |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 19 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 22 package managers | Same | No |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| Source SAST (languages) | 12 | Same | No |
| Source SAST (frameworks) | 23 | Same | No |
| Custom rules | No | No | YAML-based custom rules |
| IaC | 6 | 2 | No |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same, plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types, none in common | Same | 3 attack surface types, none in common |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs, all in common | 4 types of APIs, all in common |
| MAST | No | Yes | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| Secrets | 142 secrets types, 5 in common and 137 additional | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | 10 secrets types, 5 in common and 5 additional |
| AI | 4 functions, 1 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 1 function | 3 functions, 1 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 | 8 per year |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Escape |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6, 3 in common and 3 additional | Same | 3, all in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 3 |
| IDE | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 2, all common |
| CI/CD | 21, 8 in common and 13 additional | Same | 9, 8 in common and 1 additional |
| SCA | Native | Same | None |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | None |
| DAST | Native | Same | Native |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 1 in common | Same | 5, 1 in common and 4 additional |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | 1 |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on 2026-07-02. The primary sources of information were escape.tech and docs.escape.tech, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Escape
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.
Tags
ai-ptaasaisecurityapiasmcomparedastmcpptaassecrets