Mandiant
Last updated: Mar 5, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to Mandiant’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 .
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 | Mandiant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Incident response |
| Extras | None | None | AI security, ASM, managed defense, MDR, research and threat hunting, security validation and threat intelligence |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 1,425 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40% , IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 10%, TI 22%, sales 8%, operations 3% and others 57% |
| Headcount growth | +14% , +15%, -1% | Same | +7%, +7%, +11% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | US |
| Reputation | 9.76 from 228 reviews over 8 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 8.87 from 60 reviews over 8 years on Capterra, Gartner, PeerSpot and TrustRadius |
| Followers | 22K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 353K based on the following: Facebook, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Everest Group, Forrester, Frost & Sullivan, IDC, Info-Tech Research Group and Omdia |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2004 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $70M USD in 2 rounds from 4 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | Acquired 1 time and made 2 acquisitions |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 100M to 500M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE , ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | 17 CVEs reported to MITRE |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27017, ISO/IEC 27018, PCI DSS compliance, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Visits | 27K per month. Top 3: 34% PE, 33% CO, 6% CL. Others 27% | Same | 51K per month. Top 3: 29% IN, 17% US, 7% TH. Others 47% |
| Authority | 31 out of 100 | Same | 39 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, datasheets, documentation, e-books, podcasts, reports, testimonials, videos, webinars and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections | Same | No information available |
| Community | Forum | Same | No |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | 18 Live security education courses (subscription-based) |
| Async training | 3 product use courses , all free | Same | 9 security education courses (subscription-based and free) |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its 3 partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | Azure and GCP |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | PoC |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and marketplaces |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | No information available |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPMÂ , binary SAST, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: AI SASTÂ , API security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR | Incident response |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | No information available |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | No information available |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Mandiant |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | No. MPT |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No information available |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No information available |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | Yes |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | Yes |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | No information available |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | None | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | Availability |
| Minimum availability | 99.95% per year | Same | 99.5% per month |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | No |
| Accreditations | CNA and Penetration Testing by CREST | Same | CNA, Cyber Security Incident Response by CREST, Intelligence Led Penetration Testing by CREST and Penetration Testing by CREST |
| Hacker certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | 484 from 58 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 , 3 in common and 64 additional | All requirements from the same standards , 3 in common and 64 additional | 3 standards, all in common |
| Detection method | Automated tools | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | Automated tools, AI and human intelligence |
| Remediation | 5Â , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 1 in common |
| Output | 5Â | Same, plus 2Â | No information available |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Mandiant |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Does not break the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources , none in common | Same | 1 source |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | CVSS v3.0, EPSS, KEV and MVE (Mandiant Vulnerability Enumeration) |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 19 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| 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 |
| Source SAST (languages) | 12 | Same | No |
| Source SAST (frameworks) | 22 | Same | No |
| 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 |
| ASM | No | No | Yes |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 3 functions , none in common | Same | 1 function |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source | MPL-2 license , totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | No |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy information) |
| Regions | US | Same | AS, EU and US |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | 0.4 per year |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Mandiant |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6 | Same | None |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 2 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | None |
| DAST | Native | Same | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | 2 |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on Mar 04, 2026. The primary sources of information was cloud.google.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Mandiant
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
asmcompareexploitationmcpmptpivoting