Where do you want to start?
Nobody buys security because of a feature list. Pick whichever of these sounds like your actual situation — they all end up at the same engine, from a different door.
Start from what you need to get done
Most people arrive because something forced the issue — a questionnaire, an auditor, a customer, a board. Pick the one that sounds like your week.
Enterprise sent a 200-row questionnaire and we don't know what we'd fail.
An auditor is booked. Nobody here owns compliance.
They want a VAPT report and ours is a year old, or doesn't exist.
Scanners give us hundreds of alerts. We don't know which five matter.
Each tool says 'medium'. Nobody can tell us if they chain together.
Engineers are running coding agents. We don't know what they can reach.
Start from what you need covered
If you already know the gap, go straight to it. Every surface is scanned by the same engine and rolls into the same evidence.
AWS, GCP, Azure — misconfig, attack paths, drift
SAST, dependencies, secrets, malicious packages
MFA gaps, OAuth grants, stale access, SSPM
Deployed apps — injection, auth, XSS
REST/GraphQL — BOLA, BFLA, shadow endpoints
Images, base layers, CVEs, Dockerfile hygiene
Exposed ports, services, default credentials
Spoofable email, subdomain takeover, certs
Pull-request checks and merge gating
Start from what you're comparing us to
You are probably evaluating something else. These pages are written to be useful even if you pick the other one — including where the other one is the better fit.
Compliance automation — but who finds the vulnerabilities?
Same question, different logo.
Built for the same SMB buyer.
Evidence collection vs evidence generation.
Scanner coverage — and what happens after a finding.
What a person does, and what a system should.
None of these quite fit?
Tell us the situation in your own words and we’ll say plainly whether this is the right tool — including when it isn’t.