.png)
Aikido vs XBOW - Executive summary
Doyensec ran the benchmark and validated every finding. We pulled the results into a short executive summary your whole team can read in less than five minutes.
Mario Popescu is a Product Marketing Manager at Aikido Security, where he turns product capabilities into benefits the market understands. He writes and produces content, including video, builds case studies, and gives sales and customer teams assets they can put to work. His background runs through content, product marketing, video production for go-to-market, and offensive security.
Key Findings
Aikido found 58% more vulnerabilities at the same price tier
Across the two apps, Aikido found 49 verified vulnerabilities to XBOW’s 31. Same price, same targets, 58% more coverage. The lead holds at every severity, 9 high and critical against 5, and 32 low and medium against 18.
Code access changes what you can find
The gap comes down to what each tool can see. XBOW does black-box testing. Aikido reads your codebase first, which is how it traced the IDORs, broken authentication, and logic flaws that only surface once you understand how the app actually works.
Aikido ran in 20 minutes, XBOW needed a contract
Aikido ran on both apps in under 20 minutes, self-serve, no contract and no sales call. XBOW needed a sales rep and a signed agreement before scanning could start, which pushed the first test back by as much as six days. Reports followed the same pattern, with Aikido delivering each one the moment its pentest finished, while XBOW's arrived up to five days later.
Unlimited retests, and nothing broke along the way
On retesting, Aikido gives you unlimited runs for 90 days with results back in minutes, against XBOW's single retest inside 30 days. The engagements themselves looked different too. Aikido finished both with zero incidents. XBOW's Fider run crashed more than once, deleted a test account, switched off an auth mechanism, and sent over 4,800 emails before it wrapped up.
Summary
The bottom line
Both tools found real bugs, and both kept false positives low, 4% for Aikido and 3% for XBOW, with severity accuracy almost level at 69% and 68%. Where they split is coverage and effort. Aikido verified more, came back faster, and did it without knocking anything over.
What you’ll learn
What you'll learn:
- The full severity breakdown, from high and critical down to low
- Which bugs each tool caught on each app, and which it missed
- What went wrong during each engagement, and how often
- How long setup, scanning, and report delivery took on each side
- Whether each tool could handle multi-role and SSO testing
Doyensec ran the benchmark and validated every finding. We pulled the results into a short executive summary your whole team can read in less than five minutes.
Mario Popescu is a Product Marketing Manager at Aikido Security, where he turns product capabilities into benefits the market understands. He writes and produces content, including video, builds case studies, and gives sales and customer teams assets they can put to work. His background runs through content, product marketing, video production for go-to-market, and offensive security.