Prancer
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to Prancer’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 on the dedicated page . Organization
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Prancer |
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | CSPM |
| Extras | None | None | ASM, automated PTaaS, DAST, IaC, SAST and SCA |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | 14 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Engineering 7%, IT 7%, sales 7%, marketing 14%, operations 7% and others 58% |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | 0%, -33%, -36% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | AU, BD and US |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | No reviews |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 2K based on the following: Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | None |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2020 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | No information available |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 5M |
| 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 | SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | 344 per month. Top 3: 39% IN, 23% US, 16% KZ. Others 22% |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | 22 out of 100 |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | No information available |
| Content | Blog , documentation , e-books , glossary , reports, success stories , videos , webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, documentation and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 3 in common and 10 additional | Same | 3 documentation sections, all in common |
| Community | Forum | Same | No |
| 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 |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | Azure |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | 30-day free trial |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales, marketplace and public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 3 plans (community, premium, enterprise). None 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 | Automated PTaaS, CSPM, DAST, IaC and SCA |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1 application and 100 resources |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Application and resources |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Prancer |
| PTaaS | No | Yes | Yes. Automated 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 | None | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy , availability and response | No |
| 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 , 18 in common and 49 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 18 standards, all in common |
| Detection method | Automated tools | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | Automated tools and AI |
| Remediation | 5Â , 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 1Â | 3, all in common |
| Outputs | 5Â , 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 4, 2 in common and 2 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Prancer |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 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 | Same | No information available |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | CVSS v3.0 |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 23 package managers | Same | Yes. No information available |
| 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 | Yes |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| **Source SAST ** (languages) | 12 , 10 in common and 2 additional | Same | 18, 10 in common and 8 additional |
| **Source SAST ** (frameworks) | 22 , none in common | Same | 1 |
| Custom rules | No | No | Custom rules for test |
| IaC | 6Â , 3 in common and 3 additional | 4Â , 1 in common and 3 additional | 5, 4 in common and 1 additional |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same , plus 2 types of binaries | Yes. No information available |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types | Same | Yes. No information available |
| API security Testing | No | 4 types of APIs , 3 in common and 1 additional | 3 types of APIS, all in common |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| ASM | No | No | Yes |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types , 5 in common and 10 additional | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | 5 secrets types, all in common |
| AI | 4 functions , 2 in common and 2 additional | Same | 2 functions, all in common |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | No |
| Open-source | MPL-2.0 license , totally equivalent to the paid version | Not applicable | MPL-2.0 license, partially equivalent to the paid version |
| Provisioning as code | Yes | Yes | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (multi-tenant) + on-premises (single-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Prancer |
| 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 | 2, all in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 2 |
| IDE | 3 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| CI/CD | 21 , 1 in common and 20 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| SCA | Native | Same | Native |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | Native |
| DAST | Native | Same | Native |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 3 , all in common | Same | 3, all in common |
| CSPM | Native | Same | Native |
| Secrets | Native | Same | Native |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | 1 |
Tip
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information were prancer.io and docs.prancer.io, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Prancer
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