Zafran Security
Last updated: Sep 16, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Zafran Security'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 | Zafran Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) |
| Extras | None | None | None |
| Headcount | 186 | Same | 212 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42%, IT 12%, sales 16%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 24% | Same | Engineering 16%, IT 10%, sales 30%, marketing 5%, operations 4% and others 35% |
| Headcount growth | +3%, +21%, +29% | Same | +22%, +48%, +149% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | IL and US |
| Countries | AR, BO, BR, CL, CO, CR, DO, EC, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | IL and US |
| Reputation | 9.27 from 388 reviews over 7 years on Clutch, G2 and Gartner | Same | 9.28 from 34 reviews over 2 years on Gartner and PeerSpot |
| Followers | 23K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 15K based on the following: LinkedIn |
| Research firms | None | None | IDC |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2022 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | $130.5M USD in 5 rounds from 10 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | None |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 1M to 31M |
| Third-Party CVEs Discovered | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | 8 CVEs reported to MITRE |
| 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 | GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 Type II and TX-RAMP |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | No |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | 57K per month. Top 3: 15% IL, 8% IN and 62% US. Others 15% |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 35 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, datasheets, events, news, podcasts, reports, threat research, videos, webinars and white papers |
| 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 | Security education platform (free) |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its 5 partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS and Azure |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | No |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and marketplaces |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 2 plans (Zafran AIR, Zafran Exposure Management). All transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | Annually |
| 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 | CTEM |
| Minimum scope | 1 author | Same | 10,000 assets |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | Assets |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | No information available |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Zafran Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Scanner-based zero-day vulnerability detection | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | Zero-day vulnerability research and threat intelligence-based exposure detection |
| 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 | 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, 1 in common and 66 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 4 standards, 1 in common and 66 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, automated tools and human intelligence | AI and automated tools |
| Remediation | 5, 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 1 | 4, 3 in common and 1 additional |
| Output | 5, 1 in common and 4 additional | Same, plus 2 | 4, 1 in common and 4 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Zafran Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same, plus 1 functionality | No |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | No |
| Vulnerability sources | 18 sources, none in common | Same | 8 sources, none in common |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS, Fixing cost, KEV, Transitivity and Use | Same | CVSS and EPSS |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | Policies |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | In-house and external (Qualys, Rapid7 and Tenable for infrastructure, Orca Security, Prisma Cloud and Wiz for cloud, Snyk for AppSec) |
| 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 | Yes. No information available |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | Yes. No information available |
| 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 | Same | No |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs | No |
| MAST | No | Yes | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| Secrets | 228 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 4 functions, 3 in common and 1 additional | Same, plus 1 function | 9 functions, 3 in common and 1 additional |
| AI SAST | No | Yes | No |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source | No | No | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (multi-tenant and single-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | CH, DE, IL and US |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 3 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | Zafran Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6, 1 in common and 5 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| ChatOps | None | None | 1 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 21 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | 1 |
| Container | Native | Same | None |
| SAST | Native | Same | None |
| DAST | Native | Same | None |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | None |
| Cloud | 1 in common | Same | 2, 1 in common and 1 additional |
| CSPM | Native | Same | 4 |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | 5 |
| Bug bounty | None | None | None |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | 4 |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on 2026-09-16. The primary source of information was zafran.io, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like Zafran Security
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
comparecontainersctemmcpsbomthreat-modeling