/ how we compare

Four ways to test, one honest table.

CredShields One next to the three other ways teams test today: manual pentest firms, automated scanners, and fully-autonomous AI platforms. Including the bits where the other side wins.

/ the four camps

Most buyers are choosing between four kinds of thing.

The market labels are noisy. Here's the simplest read.

/ camp 01

Manual pentest firms

Boutique consultancies and the big-name security firms. A senior pentester runs a fixed-scope engagement over 2 to 6 weeks and hands you a PDF. Deep, expensive, slow. Best when you need adversary-emulation depth and have the budget for it.

/ camp 02

Automated scanners

DAST, SAST, SCA, and CSPM platforms. Cheap, fast, continuous. Find known-pattern issues at scale, but flood you with false positives and can't reason about business logic. Best as a baseline, never the whole story.

/ camp 03

Fully-autonomous AI

The new wave of AI-only platforms. No humans in the loop. Run continuously, chain exploits, validate findings. Scale well; struggle with the judgment-heavy edges where business context and severity calibration matter.

/ camp 04

AI + human (us)

AI handles scale, speed, and retests. Senior pentesters handle scoping, business logic, severity calls, and sign-off. The bet: you don't have to pick between depth and coverage. Best when reports go to an auditor and findings drive engineering work.

/ side by side

The full table.

Capability by capability, across the four camps. Where someone else wins, we say so.

Manual pentest
Scanners
Autonomous AI
CredShields One
Runs continuously, not once a year
Finds business-logic flaws, not just CVEs
partial
Senior human reviewer on every engagement
AI-scale coverage across every endpoint
Unlimited retests, no new invoice
Compliance-mapped reports (GDPR, SOC 2, ISO)
manual
partial
Named human signs the report
Validated exploits, not theoretical risk
Mobile binary + reverse-engineering depth
partial
Time to first validated finding
2-6 weeks
hours, mostly noise
hours, validated
Days, validated by human
Cost model
Per-engagement, 5 figures
Subscription
Subscription or per-test
Subscription, no retest fees
/ when we're not the right answer

Where you should pick someone else.

No platform wins every comparison. Here are the three buyer profiles where CredShields One is not the right call.

Heavy network / AD focus

go with NodeZero

If your main risk is internal network lateral movement, Active Directory attack paths, or on-prem infrastructure, you want a platform built for that. Horizon3 NodeZero is FedRAMP High, hardened on internal/external network pentest, and that's the right tool for that job. We focus on app, API, mobile, cloud config, and LLM features.

Need scale over depth

go with XBOW or RunSybil

If you have hundreds of internet-facing apps and need to run a basic pentest on all of them every week, the fully-autonomous platforms are built for that throughput. Their compromise is human depth on each one. Ours is the reverse: fewer, deeper, with a named human on each report.

Need everything, cheaply

go with Aikido

If you want SAST + SCA + DAST + secrets + cloud + runtime all in one developer-friendly platform at the lowest possible price, that's an AppSec-platform play, not a pentest play. Aikido and similar tools do this well. We're a pentest, not a security platform.

/ when we are the right answer

Where CredShields One is the right call.

Three buyer profiles where we're consistently the strongest option.

SaaS shipping fast

multi-release engagements

You ship every week. Your last manual pentest is already stale. Your scanners are noisy. You need continuous coverage that adapts to every release, with findings your engineering team can actually fix. That's our home turf.

Audit-driven buyer

SOC 2, ISO, PCI-DSS

You need a report that holds up to a SOC 2 Type II auditor, ISO 27001 surveillance, or PCI-DSS Req 11.4. With a named senior pentester on it. From an actual pentest, not a scanner output PDF. We ship that, in days.

App-heavy attack surface

web + API + mobile + LLM

Your real risk lives in the app layer: auth, business logic, tenant isolation, mobile binaries, LLM workflows. Network and AD are not the primary threat. The platforms built for infra-heavy environments will under-cover this; we're built for it.

/ invite-only

Still evaluating? Run us against another vendor.

Most of our design partners ran a parallel pilot with a manual firm or another AI platform. We're happy to be your second opinion. Bring the other findings; we'll tell you what we'd add.

Request access