Sees every corner of your cloud, then files a ticket. Google bought the eyes; your team still supplies the hands.
The simple version
Fixing a security hole is like putting out a fire. Most tools quit before they grab the extinguisher.
In plain wordsSeeing the smoke is easy. Spraying it, checking it's out and writing it down is where everyone else quits.
Why Cefense winsCefense is built to do every step, and for step 5 it lets a person press the button.
455 tools start the race. 0 reach the end.
In plain wordsA tool only stays in the race if it fully does every step so far. We even skipped step 5 to be fair.
Why Cefense winsCefense's design runs the whole course on your own code: find, understand, pick, fix, check, keep proof.
Your original wheel, for all 514 tools: 455 find the problem, 24 keep proof it was fixed
In plain wordsThe middle numbers count tools that fully do each step. Red means almost nobody does it.
Why Cefense winsCefense lives in the red part of this wheel: the steps after finding.
Where tools give up: 228 quit right after finding the problem
In plain wordsRead left to right. Every tool starts on the left and flows to the step where it stops doing the work itself.
Why Cefense winsThe biggest stream ends at 'quits after finding'. That is the gap Cefense was built to fill.
The scoreboard: Cefense 80, your best competitor 72.5, the average of your 18 about 49
In plain wordsGreen check = does it fully. Orange dash = does part of it. Red cross = doesn't do it. Score is out of 100.
Why Cefense winsCefense wins steps 6 and 7, the two that prove a fix is real.
Report card: the average code-security tool fails the last steps
In plain wordsGrades come from how many tools in the group fully do each step (A = almost all, F = almost none).
Why Cefense winsWhere the class gets D's and F's, Cefense is designed to get A's.
Every Cefense fix has to open four locks before you ever see it
In plain wordsThink of four locked doors. A fix only comes out the other side if it opens all four.
Why Cefense winsMost tools hand you a fix after lock 2. Cefense's design keeps it locked until the attack fails.
What Cefense hands you at the end: a receipt that proves the hole is closed
In plain wordsLike a store receipt, but for a security fix: what was wrong, what changed, and proof the attack stopped working.
Why Cefense winsThis receipt is the thing the other tools on this page can't give you.
Same bug, two paths: the normal way ends in 'hope', Cefense's ends in a receipt
In plain wordsTop: what most teams do today. Green lane: what Cefense is designed to do before anyone touches the code.
Why Cefense winsYour developers only see one thing from Cefense: a fix that already worked.
To get all seven steps today you'd stitch three tools together. Cefense is designed as one.
In plain wordsEach brick is a tool you'd have to buy. Stacking them still leaves a person doing the glue work.
Why Cefense winsOne tool, one record, one bill.
The roast wall
Every major competitor in one line. Squares are the seven steps: blue = does it, orange = partly, red = does not. Every one of the 514 tools gets a roast in the big table at the bottom.
Opens the pull request, then mostly leaves the checking to you.
Twenty years of finding bugs and it still needs you to confirm the fix actually worked.
Copilot writes the fix in seconds. Nobody replays the attack to see if it still works.
Grades your code like a strict teacher, then rarely checks if you did the homework.
A gorgeous dashboard of other people's problems. Proof that anything got fixed is sold separately.
Collects findings like stamps. Closing them is your hobby.
Brilliant rules, handy autofix suggestions, zero receipts.
Knows exactly which dependency can hurt you. Never proves the upgrade closed the hole.
Bouncer at the door for bad packages. The bugs already inside your house aren't its problem.
A spell-checker that sometimes notices security. Hands you the to-do list and leaves.
Scans everything in the pipeline, then shrugs the moment you merge.
Free, fast, and finished the second it prints the list.
A report card for repos. Has never raised a single grade.
Reviews your pull request. Has no idea if the bug is still exploitable.
Knows every AI model you run. Can't patch a single line of the code around them.
Guards the chat box for SentinelOne. Never looks at the code behind it.
Checks model files for nasty surprises. That is the whole job.
The closest rival: finds, verifies, fixes. Then forgets. One step short of a receipt.
OpenAI's researcher validates and patches like a pro. A full audit record isn't the product.
Google's patch bot only just reached preview. Proof for your auditor isn't on its list.
AI scanning plus pentests. Proof is still 'partially'.
Does a bit of everything, including a bit of proving. A bit isn't a receipt.
Breaks in beautifully. Leaves the plumbing to you.
An autonomous hacker paired with a manual plumber: you.
Topped HackerOne's US leaderboard. Doesn't write the patch.
Thousands of hackers to find it. Zero to fix it.
Simulates the attack and tells you to fix it. Then simulates it again next quarter.
Blocks the punch live and leaves the bruise in your code.
A platform the size of a city. The code fix still needs you to drive it home.
Agentless cloud scanning with AI fix tips. You still press every button.
Deep, slow and thorough at finding. Allergic to fixing.
Applies and checks patches perfectly, for code other vendors wrote. Not a line of yours.
Great at patching the software you bought. Your own app's bugs aren't on its menu.
Keeps beautiful receipts for policies. Never touched the code those policies are about.
Finds it, proves it is real, fixes it, re-runs the attack, keeps the receipt. A person presses merge.
Your competitors, one by one
Your 18 competitors, scored out of 100. The best gets 72.5. Cefense is built for 80.
In plain wordsLonger bar = does more of the job by itself. Score counts the later steps more, because those are the hard ones.
Why Cefense winsCefense's bar is green and longest because it does the steps the others skip.
Every competitor, every step: 0 of your 18 fully keep proof
In plain wordsGreen/blue check = does it. Orange = does part. Red cross = doesn't. Look at the right side: it's a sea of orange and red.
Why Cefense winsCefense's row is the only one with checks in the last two columns.
How far each competitor gets before it stops doing the work itself
In plain wordsThe blue bar is how many steps in a row the tool fully does. The red dot is where it hands the job back to you.
Why Cefense winsCefense's bar goes to the end; the dashed piece is the merge button a person presses.
The homework each tool leaves for your team
In plain wordsEvery block is a step the tool doesn't fully do, so a person on your team has to. Red = not at all. Orange = only partly.
Why Cefense winsCefense leaves one block: pressing merge on a fix that already passed.
What each competitor hands you when it's done
In plain wordsA list is a to-do list. A fix to review is homework. A receipt is proof the job is finished.
Why Cefense winsOnly Cefense's design ends with a receipt for your code.
Each competitor finds well and finishes badly. The worst gap is 75 points.
In plain wordsBlue dot: how good it is at finding problems. Red dot: how good it is at finishing the job. The grey bar is the gap.
Why Cefense winsCefense's two dots are the closest together: finding and finishing are designed as one job.
Four kinds of security tools: 16 of your 18 competitors are just 'finders'
In plain wordsRight = good at finding. Up = good at finishing. The top-right box is where you want to be.
Why Cefense winsOnly Wiz edges into the top-right box, and for cloud settings, not your code. Cefense is designed to sit there for code.
Shape test: the big five AppSec tools are lopsided. Cefense is round.
In plain wordsEach corner is a step. A full, round shape means the tool does every step. A dented shape means it skips some.
Why Cefense winsThe dent in Cefense's shape is step 5 only, on purpose.
Your closest rivals are the AI fixers. None is fully charged on step 7.
In plain wordsEach battery has seven cells, one per step. The more cells filled, the more of the job it does.
Why Cefense winsThese rivals check their fixes too, but none keeps a full proof record. That last cell is Cefense's.
Change what you care about and the leaderboard flips. Cefense goes to #1.
In plain wordsLeft: ranked by how well they find. Right: ranked by how well they finish. Same tools, different winner.
Why Cefense winsAuditors, regulators and insurers care about finishing. That's the right-hand list.
How Cefense gets from 55 to 80: every extra point comes after finding
In plain wordsStart with a normal AppSec platform's score. Each green block is a step Cefense adds.
Why Cefense winsCefense doesn't win by finding more. It wins by finishing what others start.
'Proactive' tools mostly break in. Very few fix. None keeps full proof.
In plain wordsBreaking in shows a hole exists. It doesn't close it. Read across each row to see where each tool stops.
Why Cefense winsCefense's row breaks in, writes the fix, re-checks and keeps proof: the full loop for your code.
Step by step, how many of your 18 competitors keep up with Cefense
In plain wordsFor each step, the bar counts competitors that do it as fully as Cefense is designed to. By steps 6 and 7, nobody is left.
Why Cefense winsAll 18 keep up on finding. On checking and proof, Cefense is alone.
Grouped by what they actually do, your competitors form look-alike families. Cefense lands with the big AppSec platforms, with the right side filled in.
In plain wordsA computer grouped the tools by which steps and areas they cover. Tools joined by short branches on the left are near-copies of each other.
Why Cefense winsCefense competes for the same buyers as Cycode, OX and Checkmarx, and is designed to beat that whole family on the two finishing columns, Check and Proof.
All 18 competitors, one shape each, with Cefense's outline behind every one
In plain wordsBlue is what the competitor does. The dashed green outline is Cefense's design. Wherever green shows outside blue, Cefense does more.
Why Cefense winsIn every panel the green sticks out on the right side (checking and proof). Not one competitor covers it.
Stress tests: does Cefense still win?
We scored everyone 10,000 random ways. Cefense comes first 74% of the time and top two 91%.
In plain wordsWe didn't trust our own weights, so we let a computer invent 10,000 random scoring systems and re-ranked your 18 competitors plus Cefense each time.
Why Cefense winsCefense's lead doesn't depend on how we chose to score. It only loses when the scoring piles almost all its weight on step 5, the step Cefense hands to a person on purpose.
What moves Cefense's lead: it grows most when checking and proof count more, and shrinks most when step 5 does
In plain wordsStart from Cefense's normal lead (7.5 points). Each bar shows what happens if one step counts half as much (left) or twice as much (right).
Why Cefense winsThe more a buyer cares about checking and proof, the bigger Cefense's lead gets.
Change the rules five ways: Cefense ranks first every time (tied when only finding counts)
In plain wordsEach line is one tool's place in the ranking (1 = best) under five different rules, from 'only finding counts' to 'only proof counts'.
Why Cefense winsCompetitors climb only when finding is all that counts. The moment finishing counts, Cefense pulls ahead and stays there.
The whole market
Most 'proactive' tools only attack. Few fix. Fewer check. None keeps proof.
In plain wordsEach column is a group of 'proactive' security tools. Each step to the right is harder, and fewer tools make it.
Why Cefense winsCefense is designed to stand in the last column, which is empty today.
Step by step, the red grows: 2% of tools skip step 1, 46% skip step 7
In plain wordsEach bar is one step, split into tools that do it fully (blue), partly (orange) or not at all (red).
Why Cefense winsThe red on the right is the market Cefense sells into.
One square per tool: 244 never check that a fix actually worked
In plain wordsImagine a mechanic who fixes your brakes and never tests them. That's every red square.
Why Cefense winsCefense re-runs the original attack on every fix. If the attack still works, the fix doesn't ship.
Only 1 in 21 security tools keeps proof a problem was fixed
In plain wordsLine up 21 security tools. Only one would keep proof.
Why Cefense winsCefense is designed to be that one, for your code.
Write the fix, check it, keep proof: zero tools do all three
In plain wordsEach circle is a group of tools. Where circles overlap, tools do both things. The center would do all three.
Why Cefense winsCefense's whole design is the empty center.
Only 19% of code-security tools check their own fix
In plain wordsIf this were a car's fuel gauge, the code-security market is running on almost empty.
Why Cefense winsChecking the fix is built into every Cefense finding.
The whole market as a map: red means 'stops early', green means 'finishes'
In plain wordsBigger box = more tools in that category. Color = how much of the job they finish.
Why Cefense winsThe map is mostly red and orange. The green corner is small and isn't about your code.
Hall of shame: in 9 categories, not one tool fully does anything after finding
In plain wordsEach dot is a category. Further right = more of its tools stop as soon as they find a problem.
Why Cefense winsEvery dot at 100% is a category Cefense can sit on top of: take their findings and finish the job.
Finders vs fixers: 32 of 36 categories are finders
In plain wordsBars to the right: the category is better at finding than fixing. Bars to the left: better at fixing than finding.
Why Cefense winsCode security sits deep on the finder side. Cefense moves it to the middle: finds and fixes equally.
Top 20 code-security tools throw away 27 to 38 of the 70 'finishing' points
In plain wordsThere are 70 points for the steps after finding. The red line shows how many each tool loses.
Why Cefense winsCefense loses only the 20 points for step 5, because it lets a person press merge.
All 514 tools as dots: almost all of them sit left of Cefense's line
In plain wordsEach dot is one tool, placed by how much of the job it does (0 to 100). Further right is better.
Why Cefense winsOnly 3 tools land right of Cefense's line, and none of them fixes your own code.
Big platforms are wide but shallow. Cefense is designed to be deep where it counts.
In plain wordsRight = covers more areas (cloud, code, identity...). Up = finishes more of the job. Each dot is one of the top 60 tools.
Why Cefense winsWiz, Palo Alto and Aikido cover more ground. Cefense goes further on every code finding.
Every kind of tool, as a ring: none gets past 54.2 out of 100
In plain wordsEach ring is one kind of tool. The further its colored line goes around, the more of the job those tools do on average.
Why Cefense winsThe green outer ring is Cefense's design, further around than any group.
199 of these tools already belong to a big company
In plain wordsInner ring: who owns the tool. Outer ring: what kind of tool it is.
Why Cefense winsA tool owned by Google or Palo Alto won't grade its owner's homework. An independent Cefense can grade everyone's.
The open seat: does the whole job AND isn't owned by a giant
In plain wordsEach dot is one of the top 80 tools. Top row: owned by a big company. Bottom row: independent. Further right = does more of the job.
Why Cefense winsCefense is designed to sit alone at the far right of the independent row.
Where each tool spends its effort: the crowd huddles in the 'finding' corner
In plain wordsEvery tool is placed inside the triangle by how its work splits between finding, fixing and proof. Close to a corner = it mostly does that one thing.
Why Cefense winsCefense's design is the closest to the balanced middle, tilted toward proof, the corner nobody else lives near.
Where the crowd is: a heat map of all tools by finding vs finishing
In plain wordsEach hexagon counts the tools in that spot. Dark = crowded. The crowd sits at the bottom right: great at finding, poor at finishing.
Why Cefense winsCefense's design lands in the upper-right, where the map is almost empty. Less crowd, less price war.
Survival curves: in every group, tools drop off fast; by the last step almost none survive
In plain wordsLike a survival chart in medicine: each line starts with the tools that find the problem and drops each time a step isn't fully done. Step 5 skipped for fairness.
Why Cefense winsCefense's line is the flat green one at the top: designed to survive every step.
Follow every tool through all seven steps: the blue river turns red after step 4
In plain wordsEach column is a step. Blue = the tool does it, orange = partly, red = doesn't. The bands show tools moving from one column to the next.
Why Cefense winsBy the 'Check' and 'Proof' columns most of the river is orange and red. Cefense's design stays blue except at the merge step.
Which steps travel together: finding and understanding are joined at the hip; proof is a loner
In plain wordsEach dot is a step. A thick line between two steps means many tools fully do both. A step with thin lines is rarely paired with anything.
Why Cefense winsCefense's design joins proof to finding, fixing and checking, links the market barely draws.
Every category, every step, with totals on the edges
In plain wordsEach row is a category, each column a step. Dark blue = most tools there do it; red = few or none do. Bars on top show each step's market-wide average; bars on the right show each category's score.
Why Cefense winsNo category's score bar reaches the green dashed line, which marks Cefense's design.
Nobody owns 'finishing': the top 10% of tools hold only 21% of all finishing points
In plain wordsIf one company dominated the steps after finding, the curve would hug the bottom and shoot up at the end. Instead it's a gentle bend: everyone does a little, nobody does it all.
Why Cefense winsAn unclaimed category is the best place to start a company. Cefense is designed to claim it.
The best-possible frontier today, and Cefense's design pushing past it at four areas
In plain wordsGrey dots are all tools. The red staircase is the frontier: for each number of areas covered, the best score any tool reaches. Nobody sits above it.
Why Cefense winsAt four areas, the best existing tool reaches 75. Cefense's design reaches 80: beyond today's frontier.
Every group falls off a cliff between finding and finishing. Cefense's line barely dips.
In plain wordsLeft: how well each group of tools finds problems on average. Right: how well it finishes the job. Steeper drop = bigger gap.
Why Cefense winsEvery colored line plunges. The thick green line, Cefense's design, stays high on both sides.
The market's blind ring: every area turns red at the outer edge
In plain wordsEach slice is an area (code, cloud, identity...). Rings go from step 1 in the middle to step 7 on the outside. Color shows how many tools covering that area fully do that step.
Why Cefense winsThe outer rim is red in every slice, including code, supply chain, build and secrets: the four areas Cefense works in.
Buy every code-security tool on the market and you still get only 5 of 7 steps
In plain wordsWe kept 'buying' the code-security tool that adds the most new steps. After the first one, buying more adds nothing: the missing steps don't exist in this group.
Why Cefense winsCefense's design covers 6 of 7 by itself, and the 7th (pressing merge) is left to a person on purpose.
Money and the law
Big companies are buying security startups fast, especially ones that fix and test
In plain wordsDark circles are buyers, sized by how many companies they bought. Blue = deal done. Orange = announced.
Why Cefense winsRoot, Jit, Dreadnode and AISLE, all fix-or-test startups, were bought or signed in 2026. A proof layer is what buyers are shopping for.
In one year: AI fixers launched, giants bought startups, and Europe started the clock
In plain wordsRead left to right through time. Red bubbles below the line are laws that now require proof of fixing.
Why Cefense winsThe laws arrived after the AI fixers, and they ask for exactly what Cefense produces: a record that a fix happened.
Europe's new reporting clock matches Cefense's four locks, step for step
In plain wordsSince September 11, 2026, companies selling software in the EU must report actively exploited holes in 24 hours, 72 hours and 14 days.
Why Cefense winsEvery deadline needs a piece of evidence Cefense's design already produces, in the same order.
The fine for failing the EU rules is about 1,250 times Cefense's yearly price
In plain wordsThe big red square is the biggest EU fine for these duties. The tiny green square is a year of Cefense. Both are drawn to scale.
Why Cefense winsPaying for proof is cheap next to being unable to show it.
What the buyers are shopping for: AI testing and fixing lead the list
In plain wordsRows are buyers, columns are what the bought company does. A filled cell means that buyer bought that kind of company in 2025โ2026.
Why Cefense winsTesting and fixing are the two hottest columns. A tool that fixes and proves sits right where buyers are spending.
How Cefense will prove it
Best published scores on public tests, and how much room is left to beat them
In plain wordsBlue is the best anyone has scored. The green stretch to the right is room nobody has claimed yet.
Why Cefense winsThe biggest green stretches (detection, proof-of-concept, patching) are exactly the steps Cefense is built around.
Of 50 security tests, only 4 test the whole job on real code
In plain wordsWeakest tests at the bottom (quizzes), strongest at the top (find, fix and prove on real software).
Why Cefense winsCefense should publish at the top of this pyramid, not the bottom.
All 50 security tests, ranked from most to least trustworthy
In plain wordsEach bar is one test's score out of 100, built from six pieces: how much of the job it tests, how real it is, how strictly it grades, and so on.
Why Cefense winsThe top five are the ones Cefense should run first.
Map of the tests: the best ones are real and strict, top-right
In plain wordsRight = closer to real software. Up = grades more strictly. Bigger bubble = tests more of the job.
Why Cefense winsCefense's first public results should come from the green bubbles in the top-right corner.
Which steps each kind of test actually checks. Step 7 is blank everywhere.
In plain wordsEach row is a kind of test, each column a step. A bubble means some tests of that kind check that step; bigger = more tests.
Why Cefense winsNobody tests 'keep proof' yet. Cefense's public result can be the first.
Security tests are slowly learning to test the whole job
In plain wordsEach point is the average year's tests: how much of the find-to-fix job they cover. Up = tests more of it.
Why Cefense winsThe field is moving toward Cefense's definition of done. A Cefense result lands right where the line is heading.
What tools do vs what tests check: steps 5 and 7 are never tested
In plain wordsBlue: share of tools that fully do each step. Purple: share of tests that check it.
Why Cefense winsWith no test for proof, Cefense's first published result gets to set the standard.
The plan: each Cefense lock gets checked by a public test someone else wrote
In plain wordsGreen boxes are Cefense's promises. Blue pills are open-source tests that can check each promise.
Why Cefense winsPassing other people's tests is what turns 'designed to' into 'proven to'.
Where a Cefense result would stand out: trusted tests that nobody has maxed out yet
In plain wordsRight = more trustworthy test. Up = best score so far. Tests near the top are nearly 'solved'; tests at the bottom right are trusted and wide open.
Why Cefense winsRun the bottom-right tests first (SEC-bench, BountyBench Detect, AIxCC-style patching). A strong score there gets noticed; another 99% on CyberGym doesn't.
All 50 tests as a barcode: the 'put it live' and 'keep proof' columns are completely empty
In plain wordsEach row is a test, each column a step. A colored cell means the test checks that step; the color is the kind of test. Grey bars on the right are trust scores.
Why Cefense winsTwo whole columns are blank across all 50 tests. The first public result that fills the 'proof' column defines the category, and Cefense is built to fill it.
The 50 tests across six quality checks: only the end-to-end tests stay high on every axis
In plain wordsEach line is one test, crossing six measures of quality (each scaled 0โ100%). Green lines are the end-to-end tests; they stay near the top all the way across.
Why Cefense winsThose green lines are the tests that can actually show Cefense's whole loop working.
The tables
Head to head: your 18 competitors
| Competitor | Seven steps | Score | Roast | What Cefense adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wiz Google (closed Mar 2026) | 72.5 | Sees every corner of your cloud, then files a ticket. Google bought the eyes; your team still supplies the hands. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| OX Security Independent | 62.5 | A gorgeous dashboard of other people's problems. Proof that anything got fixed is sold separately. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Cycode Independent | 62.5 | Collects findings like stamps. Closing them is your hobby. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Checkmarx One Checkmarx | 62.5 | Twenty years of finding bugs and it still needs you to confirm the fix actually worked. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Snyk Independent | 62.5 | Opens the pull request, then mostly leaves the checking to you. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Veracode Independent | 62.5 | Grades your code like a strict teacher, then rarely checks if you did the homework. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| GitHub Advanced Security Microsoft | 57.5 | Copilot writes the fix in seconds. Nobody replays the attack to see if it still works. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| GitLab Application Security GitLab | 45 | Scans everything in the pipeline, then shrugs the moment you merge. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Noma Security Independent | 55 | Knows every AI model you run. Can't patch a single line of the code around them. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Trivy Aqua | 27.5 | Free, fast, and finished the second it prints the list. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Endor Labs Independent | 62.5 | Knows exactly which dependency can hurt you. Never proves the upgrade closed the hole. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Semgrep Code Semgrep | 55 | Brilliant rules, handy autofix suggestions, zero receipts. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Socket Independent | 47.5 | Bouncer at the door for bad packages. The bugs already inside your house aren't its problem. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Prompt Security SentinelOne | 30 | Guards the chat box for SentinelOne. Never looks at the code behind it. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| SonarQube Sonar | 45 | A spell-checker that sometimes notices security. Hands you the to-do list and leaves. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| OpenSSF Scorecard OpenSSF | 27.5 | A report card for repos. Has never raised a single grade. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| ModelScan Protect AI | 20 | Checks model files for nasty surprises. That is the whole job. | fix is tested before you see it; attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Qodo Merge Qodo | 30 | Reviews your pull request. Has no idea if the bug is still exploitable. | attack is re-run on the fix; a receipt for every finding | |
| Cefense as designed | 80 | Does the whole job; a person presses merge. | โ |
Scores to beat on public tests
| Test | Best so far | Room left | Who | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CyberGym (Level 1) | 99.4% | 0.6 | Qihoo 360 TuLongFeng, Oct 2026 | source |
| CyberGym-E2E (Artificial Analysis) | 94.7% | 5.3 | Kimi K3.1 Pro, Oct 2026 | source |
| BountyBench Patch | 90% | 10 | Codex CLI o3-high / o4-mini | source |
| Team Atlanta 63-vuln patch set | 71% | 29 | best 2026 agent config, ~45/63 | source |
| AIxCC Final: synthetic vulns patched | 68% | 32 | all teams, 43 of 63 | source |
| BaxBench correct backends | 62% | 38 | OpenAI o1 at publication | source |
| SEC-bench patching | 34% | 66 | best agent at publication | source |
| SEC-bench PoC generation | 18% | 82 | best agent at publication | source |
| BountyBench Detect | 12.5% | 87.5 | Codex CLI o3-high | source |
Proof plan: which open test checks which lock
| Lock | Open-source tests | What passing shows |
|---|---|---|
| Lock 1: the attack works | CyberGym, SEC-bench (PoC) | We can trigger the bug |
| Lock 2: it's really in your code | OpenSSF CVE Benchmark, RealVuln, OWASP Benchmark | Right file, right line, few false alarms |
| Lock 3: the fix passes your tests | PatchBench, SEC-bench (patch), AutoPatchBench, Vul4J | Patch fixes the root cause and keeps tests green |
| Lock 4: the attack now fails | CyberGym-E2E, BountyBench Patch | Replayed attack fails on the fix |
| Bonus: catches AI-written bugs | BaxBench outputs | Catches what code agents ship |
50 security tests, ranked, with open-source links
Scored out of 100 for how much of the job they test, how real they are, how strictly they grade, how hard they are to cheat, who runs them and how widely they're used. Ties share a rank. Links checked Nov 5, 2026.
| Rank | Test | Kind | Code | Steps it checks | Score | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CyberGym-E2E UC Berkeley RDI et al., 2026 | End-to-end lifecycle | open code | 86 | Good for: Closest thing to a full find-prove-fix benchmark that exists Weak spot: Memory-safety C/C++ only; disclosed, already-fixed bugs | |
| 1 | DARPA AIxCC Final DARPA + ARPA-H, 2025 | End-to-end lifecycle | open code | 86 | Good for: Most rigorous one-time test of autonomous find-and-patch Weak spot: A competition, not a rerunnable leaderboard | |
| 3 | BountyBench Stanford, 2025 | End-to-end lifecycle | open code | 80 | Good for: Best web-app lifecycle benchmark; puts dollar values on results Weak spot: Small; detection rates near the floor make ranking noisy | |
| 4 | SEC-bench UIUC, NeurIPS 2025 | Patch / repair | open code | 73 | Good for: Scalable and real; good for tracking patch skill Weak spot: Patch passes if it compiles and the PoC stops crashing | |
| 4 | ZeroDayBench 2026 | End-to-end lifecycle | none found | 73 | Good for: Best design against memorized fixes Weak spot: 22 tasks is too few to separate close systems | |
| 6 | PatchBench 2026 | Patch / repair | none found | 72 | Good for: Strictest patch grading published so far Weak spot: Patching only | |
| 7 | CyberGym UC Berkeley, ICLR 2026 | Reproduce / exploit | open code | 69 | Good for: The most-cited AI cyber leaderboard Weak spot: Top agent systems now report ~99%; it has little headroom left | |
| 7 | MITRE ATT&CK Evals ER7 MITRE, Dec 2025 | Product test | open code | 69 | Good for: Best independent test for EDR/XDR Weak spot: No ranking; Microsoft, Palo Alto and SentinelOne skipped 2025 | |
| 9 | CVE-Bench (exploitation) UIUC, ICML 2025 | Reproduce / exploit | open code | 68 | Good for: Strong realism for offensive web testing Weak spot: Offense only; nothing about fixing | |
| 10 | AutoPatchBench Meta, CyberSecEval 4, 2025 | Patch / repair | open code | 67 | Good for: Good functional-equivalence checking for patches Weak spot: Fuzzing crashes in C/C++ only | |
| 11 | AV-Comparatives Business Test AV-Comparatives, H1 2026 | Product test | none found | 66 | Good for: Reliable recurring endpoint protection data Weak spot: Measures blocking, not fixing | |
| 12 | ARVO 2024 | Patch / repair | open code | 65 | Good for: Best raw material for repro and patch research Weak spot: Ships fixes but no automated patch check | |
| 12 | Magma HexHive EPFL, 2020 | Fuzzing | open code | 65 | Good for: Gold standard for measuring bug-finding by fuzzers Weak spot: Finding only | |
| 12 | PatchEval 2025 | Patch / repair | open code | 65 | Good for: Broadest real-CVE patch set Weak spot: CVEs from 2015-2025 are likely in training data | |
| 12 | VJBench 2023 | Patch / repair | open code | 65 | Good for: Early, careful anti-memorization design for repair Weak spot: Small and Java only | |
| 16 | AgentDojo ETH Zurich, 2024 | AI agent security | open code | 64 | Good for: Standard test for agent prompt-injection defenses Weak spot: Agent safety, not code security | |
| 16 | BaxBench ETH Zurich / LogicStar, ICML 2025 | Secure code generation | open code | 64 | Good for: Best test of whether AI-written code ships exploitable Weak spot: Tests writing code, not repairing existing code | |
| 16 | FuzzBench Google | Fuzzing | open code | 64 | Good for: Fair, reproducible fuzzer comparisons Weak spot: Measures fuzzers, not fixes | |
| 16 | Wiz AI Cyber Model Arena Wiz Research, 2026 | Reproduce / exploit | none found | 64 | Good for: Only benchmark with real cloud-exploitation tasks Weak spot: Vendor-run; pass@3 flatters scores | |
| 20 | Vul4J 2022 | Patch / repair | open code | 63 | Good for: Solid executable Java repair set Weak spot: Older CVEs; likely in training data | |
| 21 | CVE-Bench (patching) 2026 | Patch / repair | none found | 62 | Good for: Fresh CVEs reduce contamination Weak spot: 20 tasks; tests already needed correction | |
| 22 | Cybench Stanford, 2024 | CTF | open code | 59 | Good for: Widely used in government pre-deployment evals Weak spot: CTF puzzles are not production software | |
| 22 | ExCyTIn-Bench Microsoft, 2025 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 59 | Good for: Best SOC-investigation benchmark Weak spot: Investigation only, no remediation | |
| 24 | NYU CTF Bench NYU, NeurIPS 2024 | CTF | open code | 56 | Good for: Larger, more varied CTF set than Cybench Weak spot: Puzzles, not production code | |
| 24 | OpenSSF CVE Benchmark OpenSSF | Detection dataset | open code | 56 | Good for: Real-CVE precision and recall for JS scanners Weak spot: JavaScript only; maintenance has slowed | |
| 24 | SecCodePLT 2024 | Secure code generation | open code | 56 | Good for: Dynamic checks beat static-only secure-coding sets Weak spot: Synthetic task seeds | |
| 27 | CWEval 2025 | Secure code generation | open code | 55 | Good for: Outcome-driven: code must work and be safe Weak spot: Generation, not repair of existing code | |
| 28 | AutoPenBench 2024 | Reproduce / exploit | open code | 53 | Good for: Useful pentest-agent milestone checks Weak spot: Small | |
| 28 | CyberSecEval 3 Meta, 2024 | AI agent security | open code | 53 | Good for: Broad model-risk screen Weak spot: Mostly model safety, static insecure-code checks | |
| 28 | XBOW validation benchmarks XBOW, 2024 | Reproduce / exploit | open code | 53 | Good for: Good web-exploit regression set Weak spot: Vendor-built, used to tune its own product | |
| 31 | CyberSOCEval Meta + CrowdStrike, 2025 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 50 | Good for: Good SOC-analyst reasoning check Weak spot: Multiple choice | |
| 32 | CTIBench 2024 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 49 | Good for: Only benchmark here that tests severity judgment Weak spot: Text tasks, no code or systems | |
| 32 | InjecAgent UIUC, 2024 | AI agent security | open code | 49 | Good for: Quick injection-susceptibility screen Weak spot: Simulated tools | |
| 32 | InterCode-CTF Princeton, 2023 | CTF | open code | 49 | Good for: Fast smoke test for agent tooling Weak spot: High-school CTF difficulty | |
| 32 | PrimeVul 2024 | Detection dataset | open code | 49 | Good for: Better labels than older detection sets Weak spot: Classification only; no execution | |
| 36 | SecLLMHolmes 2024 | Detection dataset | open code | 47 | Good for: Exposes brittle LLM vuln reasoning Weak spot: Small; detection only | |
| 37 | RealVuln 2026 | Detection dataset | none found | 46 | Good for: Fair open ground truth for scanner comparisons Weak spot: Training-style vulnerable apps; detection only | |
| 38 | CVEfixes 2021 | Detection dataset | open code | 45 | Good for: Good training and mining corpus Weak spot: No execution; noisy labels | |
| 39 | DiverseVul 2023 | Detection dataset | open code | 43 | Good for: Diverse detection training data Weak spot: Function-level labels; no execution | |
| 39 | MegaVul 2024 | Detection dataset | open code | 43 | Good for: Scale for detection models Weak spot: Static labels only | |
| 39 | OWASP Benchmark OWASP | Detection dataset | open code | 43 | Good for: Fine as a smoke test Weak spot: Synthetic and public for a decade; tools are tuned to it | |
| 39 | WMDP-Cyber CAIS + Scale AI, 2024 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 43 | Good for: Used for unlearning and safety evals Weak spot: Knowledge, not capability | |
| 43 | CASTLE 2025 | Detection dataset | open code | 42 | Good for: Useful CWE-level comparison Weak spot: Micro-benchmarks favor LLMs on small snippets | |
| 43 | CyberBattleSim Microsoft, 2021 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 42 | Good for: Research sandbox for autonomous attack agents Weak spot: Abstract simulation | |
| 43 | OWASP Juice Shop OWASP | Product test | open code | 42 | Good for: Universal practice target Weak spot: Public solutions everywhere; tools are tuned to it | |
| 46 | NIST Juliet / SARD NIST | Detection dataset | open code | 39 | Good for: Regression suite for static analyzers Weak spot: Synthetic, public for 10+ years | |
| 47 | Big-Vul MSR 2020 | Detection dataset | open code | 38 | Good for: Historic baseline everyone cites Weak spot: Known label noise; superseded by PrimeVul | |
| 48 | SecurityEval 2022 | Secure code generation | open code | 37 | Good for: Early secure-codegen probe Weak spot: Checked by static tools or by hand | |
| 49 | CyberMetric 2024 | Knowledge / SOC | open code | 35 | Good for: Knowledge recall check Weak spot: Says nothing about doing the work | |
| 49 | WAVSEP 2014 | Product test | open code | 35 | Good for: Classic DAST accuracy test Weak spot: Dated; no modern frameworks |
Every category at a glance
| Category | Group | Tools | Avg score | Check the fix | Keep proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patch & endpoint remediation | Exposure & remediation | 11 | 74.3 | 100% | 0% |
| AI code security agent | AppSec & code | 21 | 65.8 | 76% | 0% |
| Managed detection & response | Detection & response | 18 | 65.6 | 0% | 0% |
| Hardened images / container remediation | Supply chain & CI | 5 | 65.5 | 0% | 80% |
| Autonomous pentest / AEV | Proactive offense | 14 | 64.3 | 100% | 0% |
| PTaaS / bug bounty | Proactive offense | 12 | 61.2 | 100% | 0% |
| Non-human identity security | Identity & secrets | 6 | 57.5 | 0% | 0% |
| Compliance automation / GRC | Data, network & other | 12 | 57.5 | 100% | 100% |
| AppSec platform / ASPM | AppSec & code | 20 | 57.2 | 0% | 0% |
| Breach & attack simulation | Proactive offense | 12 | 56.9 | 58% | 0% |
| Remediation orchestration / CTEM | Exposure & remediation | 6 | 56.7 | 0% | 17% |
| AI red teaming | AI security | 11 | 56.4 | 82% | 0% |
| EDR / XDR | Detection & response | 28 | 56.1 | 0% | 0% |
| CNAPP / cloud posture | Cloud & containers | 28 | 54.9 | 0% | 0% |
| SIEM / SOAR / AI SOC | Detection & response | 27 | 54.4 | 0% | 11% |
| Data security / DSPM | Data, network & other | 13 | 52.9 | 0% | 0% |
| Vulnerability management | Exposure & remediation | 12 | 51 | 0% | 0% |
| Runtime app protection (ADR/RASP) | Detection & response | 7 | 48.9 | 0% | 0% |
| Identity / PAM / ITDR | Identity & secrets | 20 | 47.9 | 0% | 5% |
| Email security | Data, network & other | 11 | 46.4 | 0% | 0% |
| DAST / API testing | Proactive offense | 18 | 39.9 | 6% | 0% |
| CI/CD & build integrity | Supply chain & CI | 10 | 37.8 | 0% | 20% |
| Fuzzing | AppSec & code | 7 | 37.5 | 0% | 0% |
| Secrets management | Identity & secrets | 9 | 36.9 | 0% | 11% |
| SCA / dependency security | Supply chain & CI | 20 | 36.6 | 0% | 0% |
| AI / agent security & guardrails | AI security | 28 | 32.3 | 0% | 0% |
| Container & Kubernetes security | Cloud & containers | 12 | 31.7 | 0% | 0% |
| Attack surface & asset discovery | Exposure & remediation | 16 | 31.7 | 6% | 0% |
| SAST / code scanning | AppSec & code | 20 | 31.5 | 0% | 0% |
| Network / SASE / NDR | Data, network & other | 16 | 31.1 | 0% | 0% |
| AI code review | AppSec & code | 10 | 30 | 0% | 0% |
| WAF / WAAP / API protection | Detection & response | 17 | 30 | 0% | 0% |
| Secrets detection | Identity & secrets | 8 | 29.4 | 0% | 0% |
| Mobile app security | AppSec & code | 8 | 27.5 | 0% | 0% |
| OT / IoT security | Data, network & other | 8 | 22.2 | 0% | 0% |
| Threat & exploit intelligence | Data, network & other | 13 | 20.8 | 0% | 0% |
Who's buying whom
| Buyer | Bought | Status, Nov 5, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Wiz | closed | |
| Palo Alto Networks | CyberArk | closed |
| Palo Alto Networks | Chronosphere | closed |
| Palo Alto Networks | Console | closed |
| CrowdStrike | Fiddler AI | announced |
| CrowdStrike | Dreadnode | announced |
| CrowdStrike | SGNL | announced |
| Cisco | Astrix Security | announced |
| Cisco | WideField | announced |
| OpenAI | Promptfoo | announced |
| Aikido Security | Root | closed |
| Aikido Security | OutKept | closed |
| Aikido Security | Cyberly | closed |
| Torq | Jit | closed |
| Databricks | Panther | announced |
| Zscaler | Symmetry Systems | announced |
| Fortinet | Virtue AI | closed |
| A10 Networks | TrojAI | closed |
| Cohere | AISLE | letter of intent |
| Brinqa | PlexTrac | closed |
| Dragos | runZero | closed |
| Dragos | NetRise | closed |
| Upwind | Aegis | closed |
| Check Point | Deepchecks | closed |
| Boost Security | Korbit | closed |
| Anthropic | Opaque Systems | closed |
The laws that now ask for proof
| Rule | Date | What it asks | What Cefense gives |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU Cyber Resilience Act, reporting | Sep 11, 2026 | Report actively exploited holes in 24 hours, 72 hours, and 14 days after the fix | Locks 1โ4 and the receipt |
| EU AI Act | Aug 2, 2026 | Duties for companies using high-risk AI | A record of what changed in code and why |
| EU Product Liability Directive | Dec 9, 2026 | Software counts as a product; makers are liable for defects | Proof the defect was closed |
| EU Cyber Resilience Act, full rules | Dec 11, 2027 | Security across the product's life, incl. dependencies | Dependency findings plus receipts |
What Cefense does next to prove all this
| To do | How |
|---|---|
| Publish a public test result | Investors asked for one. Run CyberGym-E2E, SEC-bench and BountyBench and publish the logs. |
| Use tests other people wrote | Earlier in-house tests used traps Cefense wrote itself. Third-party suites end that argument. |
| Show validated findings | Publish a sample of real findings with fixes the project maintainers accepted. |
| Re-test sign-up to first scan | Run it on five public repos and record it. |
All 514 tools, ranked and roasted
| Rank | Tool | Seven steps | Score | Roast |
|---|
How we scored
- Each tool gets full, partial or no credit on each of the seven steps, from its public documents and 2025โ2026 news. These are judgments to check in a trial, not lab results.
- The score is out of 100. Later steps are worth more: Find it 10, Understand it 10, Pick what matters 10, Write the fix 15, Put the fix live 20, Check it worked 20, Keep proof 15.
- Roasts are opinions drawn from those step scores.
- Cefense appears by its design (find, confirm, fix, re-run the attack, keep a receipt, a person merges). Its public test results are the next step, and it is never ranked in the tables.
Sources
- CyberGym-E2E (UC Berkeley RDI)
- CyberGym leaderboard, Oct 2026 (Ertas)
- CyberGym-E2E-AA leaderboard (BenchLM)
- DARPA AIxCC results
- BountyBench paper
- ZeroDayBench paper
- SEC-bench paper
- PatchBench
- AutoPatchBench (Meta)
- Team Atlanta: patching with agents in 2026
- BaxBench (ICML 2025)
- Wiz AI Cyber Model Arena
- MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations 2025
- AV-Comparatives Business Test H1 2026
- RealVuln
- CVE-Bench patching study
- Google completes Wiz
- Palo Alto Networks 10-K FY2026
- CrowdStrike to buy Fiddler AI and Dreadnode
- SecurityWeek M&A, May 2026
- SecurityWeek M&A, Jun 2026
- SecurityWeek M&A, Aug 2026 (links Jul count)
- SecurityWeek M&A, Sep 2026
- SecurityWeek M&A, Oct 2026
- OpenAI to acquire Promptfoo
- Aardvark becomes Codex Security
- CodeMender public preview
- XBOW Series C
- EU Cyber Resilience Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/2847