Penetrify vs. StackHawk
Penetrify and StackHawk both fit into the CI/CD pipeline, but they operate at different depths. StackHawk is a developer-first DAST (dynamic application security testing) tool that scans running web applications and APIs — REST, GraphQL, SOAP — against known vulnerability classes, driven by your API specs and wired into pull requests. Penetrify is an autonomous AI penetration tester that goes beyond signature-based scanning to actively exploit weaknesses, test authorization across user roles, and chain findings into multi-step attacks.
Key Facts
- →StackHawk is a DAST scanner optimized for CI/CD and API coverage (OpenAPI/GraphQL); Penetrify is an autonomous AI penetration tester that exploits and chains findings.
- →Penetrify tests authorization, IDOR, and business-logic flaws that signature-based DAST typically misses; StackHawk excels at fast, repeatable dynamic scans developers own.
- →Both run in the pipeline; StackHawk is built around spec-driven scanning of every endpoint, Penetrify around adversarial, role-aware attack simulation.
- →Penetrify starts at $100/month; StackHawk offers a free tier plus paid per-application/seat plans.
Quick Comparison
| Aspect | Penetrify | StackHawk |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Autonomous AI penetration testTie | Developer DAST scannerTie |
| Exploits vulnerabilities | Yes — chains real attacks✓ Advantage | Detects, does not exploit |
| Authorization / IDOR testing | Deep, role-aware✓ Advantage | Limited |
| Business-logic flaws | Tested via reasoning + chaining✓ Advantage | Generally out of scope |
| API spec-driven coverage | Crawls + tests APIs | Strong (OpenAPI/GraphQL driven)✓ Advantage |
| CI/CD integration | Native pipeline supportTie | Native, PR-focusedTie |
| Speed of scan | ~18 min full testTie | Fast, repeatable scansTie |
| Developer workflow fit | Reports + reproduction stepsTie | Findings in pull requestsTie |
| Pricing | $100–$5,000/monthTie | Free tier + paid plansTie |
What is Penetrify?
An autonomous AI penetration testing platform that attacks running web applications and APIs like an adversary — mapping the attack surface, testing authentication and authorization flows across roles, and chaining findings into multi-step exploits. It returns developer-focused reports with reproduction steps and runs on every deploy.
What is StackHawk?
A developer-first dynamic application security testing (DAST) platform that scans running web applications and APIs for known vulnerability classes. StackHawk is built to run inside CI/CD, uses OpenAPI/GraphQL specifications to achieve thorough endpoint coverage, and surfaces findings directly in pull requests so developers can fix issues before they merge. Its focus is fast, automated, repeatable dynamic scanning owned by engineering teams.
DAST Scanning vs. Autonomous Pentesting
StackHawk does DAST well: it drives scans from your API specifications, covers REST, GraphQL, and SOAP endpoints, and runs fast enough to sit in a pull-request check. It is excellent at catching the known, signature-detectable vulnerability classes early, owned by the developers who wrote the code.
Penetrify is a different discipline. Rather than matching responses against known patterns, its AI agent reasons about the application, attempts exploitation, and chains weaknesses into attack paths. That lets it find authorization flaws, IDOR, and business-logic bugs — the categories that DAST scanners, including StackHawk, are not designed to catch.
Coverage: Endpoints vs. Attack Paths
StackHawk's spec-driven model is a real advantage for API coverage: feed it an OpenAPI or GraphQL schema and it will exercise every documented endpoint consistently. If broad, repeatable endpoint coverage in CI is your priority, that is a strength.
Penetrify approaches the same app as an attacker without a map, discovering and abusing the relationships between endpoints — for example, using a token from one role to access another role's data. The value is not endpoint count but the exploit chain that proves real impact.
Who Owns the Tool
StackHawk is designed for developers to own and run, with findings surfaced where they already work — in pull requests. It is a strong fit for teams that want security testing to be a routine, self-service part of shipping code.
Penetrify is also developer-friendly and pipeline-native, but it delivers the output of a penetration test rather than a scan. Teams often run StackHawk on every PR for fast feedback and Penetrify on each release for adversarial depth.
When to Choose Each
Choose Penetrify when…
- →You need authorization, IDOR, and business-logic testing, not just signature scanning
- →You want proof of exploitable attack paths, not a list of potential issues
- →You want the output of a penetration test on every release
- →Chained, multi-step exploits are part of your threat model
- →You need reproduction steps that show real impact to developers
Choose StackHawk when…
- →You want fast, repeatable DAST scans owned by developers in CI/CD
- →Spec-driven API coverage (OpenAPI/GraphQL) is a priority
- →You want findings surfaced directly in pull requests
- →Catching known vulnerability classes early in the pipeline is the goal
- →You want a free tier to start dynamic scanning immediately
Can You Use Both?
StackHawk and Penetrify layer well. Run StackHawk on every pull request for fast, spec-driven DAST feedback that developers own, and run Penetrify on each release for adversarial, authorization-aware penetration testing that proves exploitability and chains attacks. The DAST layer keeps known issues out of merges; the pentest layer validates real-world impact.
Verdict
Pick StackHawk if you want a developer-owned DAST scanner with strong API-spec coverage that lives in your pull requests. Pick Penetrify if you want the depth of an actual penetration test — exploitation, authorization testing, and attack chaining — on every release. They are complementary layers: StackHawk for fast signature-level scanning, Penetrify for adversarial validation.