How We're Different
A different approach to security testing.
We focus on finding actual vulnerabilities in your product — apps, APIs, cloud, and infrastructure — with manual testing that goes beyond compliance checklists.
Scoped, methodical testing with clear deliverables.
A clear comparison
Different approaches serve different needs. Here's how our testing compares to common alternatives.
Traditional VAPT Compliance-focused | Bug Bounty Crowdsourced | Appsecco Product security | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope definition | Predefined checklist | Open-ended | Your complete product |
| Testing approach | Automated scans + manual verification | Varies by researcher | Manual testing, attack-chain methodology |
| Cloud infrastructure | Separate engagement | Typically out of scope | Included in product scope |
| Kubernetes / containers | Requires specialist add-on | Rarely covered | Core testing area |
| Business logic testing | Limited coverage | Depends on researcher focus | Systematic coverage |
| Retest after fixes | Additional cost | Researcher discretion | Included |
| Report format | Standardized template | Individual submissions | Executive summary + technical detail |
| Pricing model | Time & materials or fixed | Per-finding bounty | Fixed price, scoped upfront |
Each approach has trade-offs. Traditional VAPT works well for compliance requirements. Bug bounties provide ongoing coverage. Our approach is designed for teams who want comprehensive product coverage with predictable cost.
How buying works
Scoping call
We discuss what you want tested, review your product architecture, and define boundaries.
Fixed-price proposal
You receive a written scope document and fixed price. No surprises.
Testing window
Testing happens during a scheduled window. We coordinate timing with your team.
Report delivery
You receive findings with remediation guidance. Retesting is included.
Case Studies
Deeper testing, broader scope.
A fintech company had a clean compliance audit. Our testing covered additional areas in their payment flow that the audit wasn't scoped to include.
Read Case StudyTesting what bounty programs don't cover.
An e-commerce platform needed tenant isolation testing. Their bounty program wasn't structured to cover that area, so we filled the gap.
Read Case StudyManual testing complements automated scanning.
Our manual testing identified an IDOR that automated tools weren't designed to detect. Scanners and testers look for different things — both have value.
Read Case Study