Best fit: Manual pentests
Manual pentests
Manual pentests fit periodic assurance, high-touch expert review, and scoped assessments where a written report is the desired output.
Comparison
Manual pentests can give deep expert review. Automate Security keeps the validation and remediation loop running as code changes.
Short answer
Use manual pentests for periodic expert assurance. Use Automate Security when every confirmed risk needs an owner, fix path, retest, and proof chain.
Best fit: Manual pentests
Manual pentests fit periodic assurance, high-touch expert review, and scoped assessments where a written report is the desired output.
When Automate Security fits
Automate Security fits teams that need validated remediation tied to releases, code owners, retests, and customer-ready evidence.
Comparison table
| Dimension | Automate Security | Manual pentests |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Continuous release-aligned validation | Point-in-time assessment windows |
| Output | Exploit path, fix path, retest, and proof chain | Report findings and remediation guidance |
| Remediation | Designed around engineering handoff and review | Often follows as a separate internal process |
| Evidence | Living proof log for customers and auditors | Static report snapshot |
Where we differ
Keeps exploit validation and remediation evidence connected.
Moves findings toward fixes without waiting for a separate retest cycle.
Turns proof into operating evidence instead of a document handoff.
Proof delivered
Captured while the work happens, not assembled after the fact.
Captured while the work happens, not assembled after the fact.
Captured while the work happens, not assembled after the fact.
Captured while the work happens, not assembled after the fact.
Related products
See it live
Bring your security review, scanner backlog, or evidence process. We will show what should be validated, fixed, retested, and proved.
Book the comparison review