SOOS
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to SOOS’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 | SOOS |
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Native ASPM with in-house scanners and third-party scanners |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 143 | Same | 29 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42% , IT 13%, sales 13%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26% | Same | Engineering 10%, IT 3%, sales 7%, operations 14% and others 66% |
| Headcount growth | +8% , +10%, -8% | Same | +21%, +26%, +38% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | US |
| Reputation | 9.77 from 209 reviews over 7 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 9.59 from 41 reviews over 3 years on G2 |
| Followers | 20K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 1K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Omdia |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2019 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $6M USD in 2 rounds from 1 investor |
| 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 | SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Visits | 21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR, 7% US. Others 59% | Same | 11K per month. Top 3: 39% US, 7% RU, 4% FR. Others 50% |
| Authority | 32 out of 100 | Same | 31 out of 100 |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | Third-party |
| Content | Blog , documentation , e-books , glossary , reports, success stories , videos , webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, documentation, events and news |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections , 5 in common and 8 additional | Same | 5 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 or with any of its partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | Azure |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes, for public repositories |
| 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 and public web |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 2 plans (core, plus). First 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 | Containers, DAST, SAST and SCA |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 5 developers |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Developers |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | SOOS |
| 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 | 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 , 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 | Automated tools |
| False positives | 7.38 times better | 11.61 times better | 8% F0.5 score per quantity |
| False negatives | 12.36 times better | 35.55 times better | 2% F2.0 score per severity |
| 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 | SOOS |
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same , plus 1 functionality | 2 functionalities, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Breaks the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources , 1 in common and 3 additional | Same | 2 sources, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| 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 | Vulnerability ranking |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house and External (ZAP for DAST) |
| SCA | 23 package managers , 11 in common and 12 additional | Same | 15 package managers, 11 in common and 4 additional |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 12 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 22 package managers , 9 in common and 13 additional | Same | 15 package managers, 9 in common and 7 additional |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | Yes. No information available |
| **Source SAST ** **(languages) ** | 12 | Same | No |
| **Source SAST ** **(frameworks) ** | 22 | Same | No |
| Custom rules | No | No | Security standards for SCA |
| IaC | 6Â | 4Â | No |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same , plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types , 4 in common and 3 additional | Same | 6 attack surface types, 4 in common and 2 additional |
| 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 | No |
| ASM | No | No | No |
| Secrets | 15 secrets types | Same , plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 3 functions | Same | No |
| 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 (multi-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | SOOS |
| SCM | 6 , 4 in common and 2 additional | Same | 4, 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 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| CI/CD | 21 , 11 in common and 10 additional | Same | 11, all in common |
| SCA | Native | Same | Native |
| Container | Native | Same | Native |
| SAST | Native | Same | 1 |
| DAST | Native | Same | Native powered by ZAP |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 3 | Same | None |
| CSPM | Native | Same | None |
| Secrets | Native | Same | 1 |
| 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 26, 2025. The primary sources of information were soos.io and kb.soos.io, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like SOOS
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