ThreatModeler
Last updated: Mar 5, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks’ solution compare to ThreatModeler’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 | ThreatModeler |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Automated threat modeling |
| Extras | None | None | IaC scanning |
| Headcount | 157 | Same | 125 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 40% , IT 14%, sales 15%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 25% | Same | Engineering 27%, IT 10%, sales 19%, marketing 5%, operations 3% and others 36% |
| Headcount growth | +14% , +15%, -1% | Same | +15%, +42%, +98% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR , BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | IN and US |
| Reputation | 9.76 from 228 reviews over 8 years on Gartner and Clutch | Same | 10 from 2 reviews over 1 year on PeerSpot |
| Followers | 22K based on the following: Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , X and YouTube | Same | 22K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | Gartner |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2010 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $60M USD in 1 round from 1 investor |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 23M |
| 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 | SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | ISO/IEC 27001 |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 27K per month. Top 3: 34% PE, 33% CO, 6% CL. Others 27% | Same | 4K per month. Top 3: 47% IN, 25% UK, 8% US. Others 20% |
| Authority | 31 out of 100 | Same | 30 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, case studies, data sheets, e-books, videos, webinars and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections | Same | No |
| Community | Forum | Same | Chat (Discord, Reddit and Slack) and forum |
| 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 4 partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | No |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | Yes |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and marketplace |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 1 plan |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPMÂ , binary SAST, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: AI SASTÂ , API security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR | Automated threat modeling |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 1 license |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Licenses |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No information available |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ThreatModeler |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | No |
| 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 | No |
| Hacker 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 , 5 in common and 62 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 8 standards, 5 in common and 3 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | Automated tools , AI and human intelligence | None |
| Remediation | 5Â | Same, plus 1Â | Not applicable |
| Output | 5Â , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2Â | 4, 1 in common and 3 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ThreatModeler |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | Yes. No information available |
| IDE | 5 functionalities , 1 in common and 4 additional | Same , plus 1 functionality | 1 functionality in common |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | No |
| Vulnerability sources | 4 sources | Same | None |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0 , CVSSF , EPSS and KEV | Same | Not applicable |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | No |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | None |
| 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 | 6Â , 2 in common and 4 additional | 4Â , 1 in common and 3 additional | 3, all in common |
| 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 | 3 functions , none in common | Same | 2 functions, none in common |
| 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 (multi-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 4 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ThreatModeler |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6 | Same | None |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3 , 2 in common and 1 additional | Same | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| ChatOps | None | None | None |
| IDE | 3 , 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| CI/CD | 21 , 4 in common and 17 additional | Same | 4, all in common |
| 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 | 1 |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on Mar 05, 2026. The primary sources of information was threatmodeler.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like ThreatModeler
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
compareiacthreat-modeling