Phoenix Security
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to Phoenix’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 | Phoenix |
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | ASPM |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | 20 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Engineering 15%, IT 10%, sales 10% and others 65% |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | -5%, +18%, +11% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | UA, UK and US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | UK and US |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 9.63 from 116 reviews over 3 years on Capterra, G2 and Gartner |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 60K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Omdia |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2021 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $1.79M USD in 6 round from 7 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 10M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 276 CVEs reported to MITRE , ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | 4K per month. Top 3: 30% US, 19% RU, 5% PH. Others 46% |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | 28 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, data sheets, e-books, live events, podcast, videos and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 3 in common and 10 additional | Same | 4 documentation sections, 3 in common and 1 additional |
| Community | Forum | Same | Chat (slack) |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | No |
| 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 | 14-day free trial |
| 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 (professional, enterprise). First transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| 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 | Cyber Threat Intelligence |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1,001 assets |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Assets |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Phoenix |
| 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 | None |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | Response |
| Minimum availability | >=99.95% per minute LTM | Same | None |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | No |
| Accreditations | CNA and Penetration testing by CREST | Same | None |
| Hacker certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | Not applicable |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee or freelance |
| Endpoint control | Not applicable | Total | Not applicable |
| Channel control | Not applicable | Total | Not applicable |
| 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 | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | None |
| Remediation | 5Â , 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 2, all in common |
| Outputs | 5Â , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Phoenix |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same , plus 1 functionality | No |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Does not break the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources | Same | No information available |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | CVSS, EPSS and KEV |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | None |
| SCA | 23 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | Yes. No information available |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Deterministic |
| 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) | 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 |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| ASM | No | No | No |
| 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 | No |
| Open-source | MPL-2.0 license , totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | No |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (no tenancy information) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | 0.4 per year |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Phoenix |
| SCM | 6 , 3 in common and 3 additional | Same | 3, all in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 , 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 4, 2 in common and 2 additional |
| ChatOps | None | None | 1 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | 15 |
| Container | Native | Same | 16 |
| SAST | Native | Same | 15 |
| DAST | Native | Same | 8 |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 3 , all in common | Same | 3, all in common |
| CSPM | Native | Same | 7 |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | 2 |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | 1 |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
Tip
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary source of information was phoenix.security, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Phoenix 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