SUVs and crossover vehicles might look like the same thing at first glance, but in most cases those similarities are only skin deep. Both SUVs and crossovers vehicles have become immensely popular, but you should make sure you're getting the vehicle type with the attributes you need.
This comparison focuses on how Holm Security and Detectify address the core challenges faced by AppSec teams: gaining visibility and context, testing their web applications and APIs, and how quickly users can get value from these tools. Holm Security offers broad, unified coverage across the entire IT estate (internal, external, and cloud) and relies on a proprietary unified risk score for strategic prioritization, making it a good consolidated risk reporting and management tool. Detectify, by contrast, is a specialized EASM and DAST solution focused on external applications. Detectify utilizes its Asset Classification to provide explicit scanning recommendations and employs 100% payload-based testing to ensure a high-fidelity signal, directly reducing friction and the time spent validating findings.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Holm Security users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Holm Security appeared first on Blog Detectify.
This review provides a direct comparison between two external security platforms, Halo Security and Detectify. The analysis will focus on three core areas critical to Application Security engineers: Visibility and Context, which examines how each platform discovers and classifies assets; Assessment, which compares their technical methodologies for finding vulnerabilities; and Usability, which evaluates the day-to-day workflow and operational efficiency of each tool.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Halo Security users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Halo Security appeared first on Blog Detectify.
For Application Security leaders and engineers, the choice between Rapid7 and Detectify is a decision between two fundamentally different philosophies: a broad, SOC-centric platform versus a purpose-built, practitioner-focused tool. Rapid7 presents a unified solution that correlates application flaws with holistic infrastructure risk, while Detectify is engineered exclusively for the external AppSec workflow. This analysis has compared both platforms through the three core use cases that matter to an AppSec team: their approach to visibility and attack surface discovery, the technical methodology and effectiveness of their assessment engines, and the practical usability of each tool in a modern, fast-paced remediation pipeline.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Rapid7 users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Rapid7 appeared first on Blog Detectify.
This comparison reviews two security platforms, Detectify and Invicti, both engineered to provide vulnerability assessment and attack surface management. While both platforms compete, Detectify is built on a forward-looking philosophy, leveraging its proprietary, payload-based scanning engine and a multi-source intelligence model. This approach is powered by a private community of elite ethical hackers (Detectify Crowdsource), an AI researcher, and an internal team, enabling it to find the novel, non-CVE vulnerabilities that other tools miss. In contrast, Invicti’s value is rooted in its “Proof-Based Scanning” engine, an approach focused on confirming publicly known vulnerabilities, which requires a significant upfront time investment for configuration and cannot scan for emerging, 0-day threats. This core difference in assessment philosophy steers the platforms’ respective value, usability, and the day-to-day workflow for an AppSec team.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients of Invicti who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Invicti appeared first on Blog Detectify.
This comparison reviews two modern security platforms, ProjectDiscovery and Detectify, both engineered to provide high-signal, low-noise vulnerability assessment and attack surface management. While both are effective, they are built on fundamentally different philosophies. ProjectDiscovery is a platform where its value is rooted in its powerful open-source tools, like the Nuclei engine, which offer self-serve customization for newly disclosed public CVEs. In contrast, Detectify’s value lies in its proprietary, payload-based scanning engine , which is uniquely powered by a private community of elite ethical hackers (Detectify Crowdsource) to find novel, non-CVE vulnerabilities. This core difference in approach steers their respective strengths in assessment, usability, and the day-to-day workflow for an AppSec team.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients of ProjectDiscovery who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. ProjectDiscovery appeared first on Blog Detectify.
Choosing the right tool is a critical decision that depends on a team’s specific goals, resources, and technical focus. This review provides an in-depth comparison of two leading platforms, Escape and Detectify, to help you make an informed choice. We will explore how each tool approaches three core pillars of any effective AppSec program: Visibility (discovering and understanding your attack surface), Assessment (accurately finding vulnerabilities), and Usability (ensuring the tool is efficient and enjoyable to use). By the end of this comparison, you will have a clear understanding of each platform’s strengths and weaknesses, enabling you to determine which solution is the better fit for your team’s unique operational style—whether you need a tool built for deep, customizable analysis or one optimized for speed and decisive, guided action.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Escape users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
TL;DR
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Escape appeared first on Blog Detectify.
The difference between Detectify and Tenable lies in their core scope and the use cases they support. Detectify is a specialized, attacker-centric platform designed for the application security practitioner. Its focus is exclusively on the external, internet-facing attack surface with Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) to find exploitable vulnerabilities in web applications and APIs. In contrast, Tenable is a comprehensive exposure management platform built for the entire security and risk organization. It provides a holistic view of risk across the entire IT estate—from internal servers and cloud infrastructure to identity systems and the external perimeter—positioning itself as the central nervous system for enterprise-wide vulnerability and risk management.
Their differing scope dictates their strengths. Detectify’s primary advantage for an AppSec team is the high-fidelity, low-noise nature of its findings. Its unique reliance on payload-based testing, powered by a crowdsourced network of elite ethical hackers, delivers results that prove exploitability and are immediately actionable. This builds credibility with development teams and streamlines the remediation workflow, which is a significant usability win. Tenable’s strength lies in its unmatched breadth of coverage and its powerful risk contextualization through the Vulnerability Priority Rating (VPR) and Attack Path Analysis. It excels at showing how an application fits into an org’s risk profile, making it an indispensable tool for compliance and enterprise risk management.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Qualys users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
TL;DR
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Tenable appeared first on Blog Detectify.
Your responsibilities cover the full spectrum of risk—from the applications your teams build and the products you ship to the overarching compliance mandates you must meet. The core challenge is achieving this with a lean team where every hour of engineering time is critical. Choosing the right tooling is not just a technical decision; it’s a strategic one that directly impacts your team’s efficiency and your organization’s security posture.
This review provides an in-depth, practical comparison of Qualys and Detectify across three critical dimensions for a security leader:
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Qualys users who decided to evaluate Detectify as it alternative, but also based on the following sources:
TL;DR
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Qualys appeared first on Blog Detectify.
Choosing the right DAST tool is a critical decision that shapes the effectiveness of their entire program. Detectify and Burp Suite Enterprise, exemplify the innovation happening in this space. While both are powerful assessment tools, they are engineered to solve different core problems, stemming from fundamentally different approaches to visibility, vulnerability assessment, and usability. Understanding these differences is key to selecting the platform that aligns with your team’s specific needs, maturity, and security goals.
This comparison breaks down the core philosophies of each tool. Detectify operates on an “outside-in” model, starting with the crucial question: “What is my complete external attack surface?” It combines attack surface discovery with payload-based testing sourced from elite ethical hackers, the AI agent Alfred, and its internal security research team to provide immediate visibility and high-confidence, actionable findings. In contrast, Burp Suite Enterprise follows an “inside-out” model, built to answer: “Is this specific application I already know about secure?” It provides a powerful, highly customizable DAST scanner for mature security teams to perform deep, exhaustive scans on a known set of assets, prioritizing granular control and comprehensive coverage over automated discovery and ease of use.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Burp Enterprise users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
TL;DR
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Burp Enterprise appeared first on Blog Detectify.
This guide will explore the key distinctions between Nessus and Detectify, two products built to solve different problems. We’ll compare their core visibility, assessment methodologies, and approaches to modern web apps and API security.
The primary difference between the two products lies in their core focus. Nessus focuses on infrastructure vulnerability scanning, where they have prioritized performing deep, authenticated scans on internal assets like servers and workstations. Nessus’ strength is its massive plugin library, which is ideal for patch management and compliance auditing. However, its web application scanning is a newer, less specialized feature, and its external scans are signature-based, which can create a high volume of false positives and triage work for an Application Security team.
Detectify, in contrast, starts with giving users both the visibility and context about their attack surface, making it possible to test each and every asset, like modern web applications and APIs. Its key technical differentiator is its payload-based testing methodology, API scanner, and classification and recommendation system. By confirming exploitability with every finding, it reduces false positives and curbs the triage load. Detectify’s assessment capabilities are further enhanced by sourcing vulnerabilities from a private community of ethical hackers and an AI agent, allowing it to find novel and non-CVE issues.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Nessus users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
TL;DR
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Nessus appeared first on Blog Detectify.
Intruder is a cloud-based vulnerability scanner that provides an automated overview of an organization’s attack surface. Its primary function is to proactively identify weaknesses across internet-facing infrastructure and applications before they are exploited. The platform’s scanning engine runs a set of checks for both infrastructure-level misconfigurations and application-layer vulnerabilities, like those in the OWASP Top 10. It leverages open-source engines like ZAP to execute its checks.
For an application security team, Intruder offers a tradeoff between ease of use and granular control. The platform is user-friendly, but its options for fine-tuning scan configurations are limited. Furthermore, its continuous attack surface monitoring and testing capabilities, which are critical for securing externally-facing assets, are limited and primarily available only in its highest pricing tiers.
This document provides a direct comparison of Intruder and Detectify. The objective is to break down the key technical differentiators to help users make an informed decision.
We’ve built this comparison mainly based on the feedback from dialogues with prospective clients and past Intruder users who decided to evaluate Detectify as its alternative, but also based on the following sources:
The post Product comparison: Detectify vs. Intruder appeared first on Blog Detectify.
Login