Manicode
Last updated: Nov 4, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Manicode's?
These tables compare the solutions of the two providers, attribute by attribute. Use them to compare the solutions for the cybersecurity requirements of your company. To learn what each attribute means, read the descriptions of the attributes.
Organization
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Manicode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Secure AI code generation |
| Extras | None | None | AI security guardrails, compliance gap analysis and threat modeling |
| Headcount | 186 | Same | 3 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42%, IT 12%, sales 16%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 24% | Same | IT 33% and others 67% |
| Headcount growth | +3%, +21%, +29% | Same | -25%, -25%, +200% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR, BO, BR, CL, CO, CR, DO, EC, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | US |
| Reputation | 9.27 from 388 reviews over 7 years on Clutch, G2 and Gartner | Same | No reviews |
| Followers | 23K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 157 based on the following: LinkedIn |
| Research firms | None | None | None |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2004 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | No information available |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | No information available |
| Third-Party CVEs Discovered | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | None |
| 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 | No information available |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | No information available |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 5 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 | Course catalog, documentation, talks and webinars |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections, 3 in common and 10 additional | Same | 7 documentation sections, 3 in common and 4 additional |
| Community | Forum | Same | No |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | 23 security education courses (subscription-based) |
| Async training | 3 product use courses, all free | Same | 3 security education courses (subscription-based) |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | None |
| 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 | Public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 3 plans (Enterprise, Pilot, Teams). Transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| 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 | Secure AI code generation |
| Minimum scope | 10 authors | Same | 5 prompts |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Prompts |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Manicode |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Scanner-based zero-day vulnerability detection | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | None |
| 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 and Penetration Testing by CREST | Same | None |
| Pentester certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | Not applicable |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee or freelance |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | No information available |
| Channel control | No | Total | No information available |
| Standards | Some requirements from 67 standards, 5 in common and 62 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 7 standards, 5 in common and 2 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, automated tools and human intelligence | AI |
| Remediation | 5, 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 1 | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| Output | 5, none in common | Same, plus 2 | 6, none in common |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Manicode |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | No |
| 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 | None |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS, Fixing cost, KEV, Reachability, Transitivity, Use and VLAI | Same | No information available |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | External (third-party LLMs for AI code review) |
| SCA | 21 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reachability | 14 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 24 package managers | Same | No |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| Source SAST (languages) | 14 | Same | No |
| Source SAST (frameworks) | 23 | Same | No |
| Custom rules | No | No | No |
| IaC | 6 | 2 | 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 |
| MAST | No | Yes | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| Secrets | 313 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 5 functions, none in common | Same | 5 functions, none in common |
| AI SAST | No | Yes | Yes |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | No |
| Open-source | No | No | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | No information available |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 3 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Manicode |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6, 1 in common and 5 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 | Same | None |
| ChatOps | None | None | None |
| IDE | 3, all in common | Same | 7, 3 in common and 4 additional |
| CI/CD | 23, 1 in common and 22 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| SCA | Native | Same | None |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | None |
| DAST | Native | Same | None |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 1 | Same | None |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
Fluid Attacks last updated these tables on 2026-10-15. The primary sources of information were manicode.ai and docs.manicode.ai. Fluid Attacks also used specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Manicode
Free trial — Search for vulnerabilities in your applications at no cost with the automated security testing of Fluid Attacks. Start your 21-day free trial and see the benefits of the Essential plan. The Advanced plan includes the expertise of the pentesting team of Fluid Attacks. To get the Advanced plan, complete this contact form.
Tags
compareai-sastaisecuritythreat-modeling