See the difference on your own app
From discovery to a proven attack chain. A PoC in your own environment.
Best-of-breed point tools are strong in isolation. The cost shows up when you try to make them agree: duplicate findings, no proof of exploitability, three bills, and your source code in someone else's cloud. Here is the honest difference.
| Capability | apPosture | Assembled point-tool stack |
|---|---|---|
| Platform & coverage | ||
| All disciplines in one platform | DAST, API security, SAST, SCA, secrets, container, IaC, cloud/K8s, agentic pentest | Multiple vendors, stitched together |
| Cross-source correlation and dedup | One Unit of Work per root cause (fingerprint) | Manual reconciliation, or none |
| Reachability-first prioritization | Reachability + KEV/exploit funnel | Varies by tool |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ||
| Known-CVE detection with cross-tool merge | cve|component fingerprint merges our scan + imported reports | Per-tool, duplicated |
| Reachability to cut safe-dependency noise | Reachable funnel + local-LLM false-positive filter | Often advisory-only, noisy |
| Static analysis (SAST) | ||
| Proof-grade detection accuracy | OWASP Benchmark: precision 100%, recall 99.4% | Pattern-based, noisier |
| Fix guidance with PoC and secure code | Confirmed findings ship PoC + Secure Code Fix | IDE-only or enterprise add-on |
| Dynamic testing (DAST) | ||
| Proof of exploit, not heuristics | DOM-XSS execution, differential SQLi, OAST | Mostly pattern / advisory based |
| Authenticated and deep crawl | Authenticated DAST, param mining, OOB pivots | Limited or separate product |
| Agentic pentesting | Agentic pentest profile, no extra credits | Credit-based add-on, if any |
| Cloud, IaC & containers | ||
| Infrastructure-as-Code scanning | Included in every edition, not a separate SKU | Often a separate SKU |
| Offline container image scanning | dpkg/apk package analysis + CIS image config | SaaS registry scan only |
| Secrets & governance | ||
| Secrets detection | Repo scan correlated into posture, not IDE-only | Often IDE-only |
| Deterministic compliance mapping (7 frameworks) | OWASP, PCI, ISO, SOC 2, NIST, HIPAA, GDPR | Add-on module or manual |
| Fail-closed CI gate with Monitor to Block | Roll out from the UI, no pipeline edit | Varies; often fails open |
| Tamper-evident evidence vault | Append-only hash chain | Exports, not verifiable |
| Deployment, data & pricing | ||
| Self-hosted and fully air-gapped | Docker Compose, functional offline | SaaS-first; offline rarely supported |
| Local LLM by default - vendor never sees your code | Local by default; external model opt-in + kill-switch | Cloud AI; your code leaves to the vendor |
| Where your data lives | Your infrastructure, your control | Vendor cloud |
| Pricing model | Per-developer license, all engines in - no metering | Per-seat × per-product, metered + credits |
Comparison reflects the typical assembled AppSec stack. Tool capabilities change; evaluate against your own requirements - we will run a proof on your apps so you do not have to take our word for it.
Twelve disciplines deduplicate into a single risk-weighted view - instead of three dashboards that disagree.
Every finding carries an honest status - confirmed by exploit, reachable, likely or inferred - never a blanket "vulnerable". Reachability and KEV cut 500 findings to the ~12 that matter.
Self-hosted, air-gapped, local LLM. The strongest data-residency story is sending nothing at all.
Other platforms ask you to trust their cloud with your source code. apPosture's default deployment asks you to trust nothing - self-hosted, entirely inside your infrastructure, with a local LLM, no telemetry and no outbound connection. Your data stays inside your own boundary unless you deliberately choose the managed option, so data-residency and sovereignty requirements are met by design, not by policy.
From discovery to a proven attack chain. A PoC in your own environment.