RunSybil
Last updated: Mar 25, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to RunSybil'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 | RunSybil |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-Driven pentesting |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 13 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40%, IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 38%, no additional information available |
| Headcount growth | +14%, +15%, -1% | Same | +30%, +160%, +18% |
| 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 | No reviews |
| Followers | 22K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 2K based on the following: LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | IDC |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2023 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | No information available |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | No information available |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable as not CNA Researcher |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | None |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 27K per month. Top 3: 34% PE, 33% CO, 6% CL. Others 27% | Same | 2K per month. Top 3: 81% US, 8% IN, 6% NG. Others 5% |
| Authority | 31 out of 100 | Same | 19 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 |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections | Same | No |
| 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 | None |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | PoV |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | No information available |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPM, binary SAST, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: AI SAST, API security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR | No information available |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | No information available |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | No information available |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No information available |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | RunSybil |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | Yes. Automated AI-PTaaS |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | No |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | Yes |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | Not applicable |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | None | 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 |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | Not applicable |
| Channel control | No | Total | Not applicable |
| Standards | Some requirements from 67 standards | All requirements from the same standards | No information available |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, Automated tools and human intelligence | Automated tools and AI |
| Remediation | 5, none in common | Same, plus 1 | 1 |
| Output | 5, 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2 | 1 in common |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | RunSybil |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | No |
| 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 | No information available |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No information available |
| 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 | 6 | 4 | 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 | No |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 4 functions, none in common | Same | 1 function |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | No |
| 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 (no tenancy info) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | RunSybil |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6 | Same | None |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 1 |
| 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 | None |
| Compliance | None | None | 1 |
The latest update to this comparison was on Mar 05, 2026. The primary sources of information was runsybil.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like RunSybil
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
ai-ptaascompareexploitation