GitHub Advanced Security
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to GitHub Advanced Security’s (GHAS)? 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 .
Note
This comparison focuses exclusively on the product itself, even though it belongs to a larger parent company. All information collected is based on the product’s technical, functional, and theoretical capabilities, not on attributes of the parent company.
Organization
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | GHAS |
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | In-house scanners |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 9.62 from 11 reviews over 2 years on PeerSpot |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Research firms | None | None | Forrester, Gartner and IDC |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2020 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Acquisitions | None | None | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 276 CVEs reported to MITRE , ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | 1,992 CVEs reported to MITRE by GitHub |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | CSA STAR Level 1 |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | Indeterminable (no information for this product alone) |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | GitHub - Discovered and third-party |
| Content | Blog , documentation , e-books , glossary , reports, success stories , videos , webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, customer stories, data sheets, documentation, e-books, videos, webinars and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 3 in common and 10 additional | Same | 3 documentation sections, all in common |
| Community | Forum | Same | Forum with top leader members by GitHub |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | 10 on-demand live security education courses by GitHub (subscription-based) |
| 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 | None |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | 30-day free trial and PoV |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 2 plans (GitHub Secret Protection, GitHub Code Security). All transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Monthly |
| 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 | SAST, SCA and Secrets |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1 author |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Authors |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | GHAS |
| 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 | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research by GitHub |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | Response and availability |
| Minimum availability | >=99.95% per minute LTM | Same | >=99.9% per Q |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | Yes |
| Accreditations | CNA and Penetration Testing by CREST | Same | CNA |
| 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 | 9 standards, 5 in common and 4 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | Automated tools |
| False positives | 1.78 times better | 3.37 times better | 21% F0.5 score per quantity |
| False negatives | 2.5 times better | 9.06 times better | 8% F2.0 score per severity |
| Remediation | 5Â , 4 in common and 1 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 4, all in common |
| Outputs | 5Â , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | GHAS |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities , 2 in common and 3 additional | Same , plus 1 functionality | 3 functionalities, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Breaks the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources , none in common | Same | 7 sources, none in common |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | CVSS v4.0 and EPSS |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 23 package managers , 16 in common and 7 additional | Same | 26 package managers, 16 in common and 10 additional |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 22 package managers , 15 in common and 7 additional | Same | 26 package managers, 15 in common and 11 additional |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Autofix on components | No | No | Yes |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| **Source SAST ** (languages) | 12 , 9 in common and 3 additional | Same | 11, 9 in common and 2 additional |
| **Source SAST ** (frameworks) | 22 , 13 in common and 9 additional | Same | 28, 13 in common and 15 additional |
| Custom rules | No | No | No |
| IaC | 6Â | 4Â | No |
| 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 , 3 in common and 12 additional | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | 4 secrets types, 3 in common and 1 additional |
| AI | 3 functions , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 function in common |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source | MPL-2 license , totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | No |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS + on-premises (no information available) |
| Regions | US | Same | EU and US |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | 3.7 per year |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | GHAS |
| SCM | 6 , 1 in common and 5 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | None |
| IDE | 3 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| CI/CD | 21 , 1 in common and 19 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| 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 | 1 |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
Tip
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 16, 2025. The primary source of information was docs.github.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like GitHub Advanced Security
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