Target Defense
Last updated: Sep 1, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Target Defense'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 | Target Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | MPT and PTaaS |
| Extras | None | None | Digital forensics, GRC consulting, incident response, managed SIEM, purple team and red team |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 40 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40%, IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 8%, IT 33%, sales 15%, marketing 3%, operations 8% and others 33% |
| Headcount growth | +14%, +15%, -1% | Same | +33%, +167%, +344% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | GB and US |
| Countries | AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | GB |
| Reputation | 9.44 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 | 631 based on the following: LinkedIn |
| Research firms | None | None | None |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | No information available |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | No information available |
| Acquisitions | None | None | Acquired 1 time and made 6 acquisitions |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 17M |
| CVEs as CNA Researcher | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | Not applicable, as it is not a CNA Researcher |
| 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 | ISO 9001:2015 and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | 51K per month. Top 3: 48% GB, 16% US and 6% ID. Others 30% |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 34 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 or with any of its partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | None |
| Freemium | No | No | Yes |
| 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 | 4 plans (Essentials, Core, Advanced and Pro). First two transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| 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 | External scanning and web application scanning |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | Per IP, per URL or per user |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Number of IPs, URLs and e-learning users |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No information available |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Target Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | MPT and PTaaS |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No information available |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No information available |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | Yes |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | Yes |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | No information available |
| 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, Penetration Testing by CREST and OpenSSF Gold Badge | Same | Application Security Testing by CREST, Incident Response by CREST, Mobile Application Security Testing by CREST, Penetration Testing by CREST, Threat Led Penetration Testing by CREST, TLPT-FS Threat Led Penetration Testing by CREST and Vulnerability Assessment by CREST |
| Pentester certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | 2 from 2 different types |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | No information available |
| Channel control | No | Total | No information available |
| Standards | Some requirements from 67 standards, 7 in common and 60 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 13 standards, 7 in common and 6 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, automated tools and human intelligence | Automated tools and human intelligence |
| Remediation | 5, none in common | Same, plus 1 | 1 |
| Output | 5, 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 2 | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Target Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | No |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same, plus 1 functionality | No |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | No |
| Vulnerability sources | 18 sources, 1 in common and 17 additional | Same | 2 sources, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS, Fixing cost, KEV, Transitivity and Use | Same | Blast radius and CVSS |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | Customizable SLA remediation windows |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house |
| SCA | 19 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | No |
| Reachability | 14 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 |
| 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, 2 in common and 5 additional | Same | 2 attack surface types, all in common |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs, 3 in common and 1 additional | 3 types of APIs, all in common |
| MAST | No | Yes | Yes |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Secrets | 228 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 4 functions | Same, plus 1 function | No |
| AI SAST | No | Yes | No |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | No |
| Open-source | No | No | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (no tenancy information) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 3 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Target Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6 | Same | None |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 | Same | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| ChatOps | None | None | 1 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | None |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | None |
| DAST | Native | Same | Native |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 1 | Same | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional |
| CSPM | Native | Same | Native |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | None |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | None |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on 2026-09-01. The primary source of information was targetdefense.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Target Defense
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
compareapiaspmcspmdastexploitationmastmptpivotingptaasrt