Apiiro AI SAST vs Fluid Attacks Continuous Hacking: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Apiiro AI SAST

Mid-market and enterprise teams drowning in application risk backlogs will see the clearest ROI from Apiiro AI SAST because its Risk Graph connects code findings to runtime behavior, letting you ignore the noise and fix what actually matters. The platform covers ID.AM, ID.RA, and GV.SC across the NIST CSF 2.0, meaning it handles inventory, risk prioritization, and supply chain visibility without bolting on three separate tools. Skip this if your developers won't tolerate pull request friction or if you need deep integration with homegrown CI/CD systems; Apiiro's guardrails assume modern DevOps workflows.

Fluid Attacks Continuous Hacking

Teams that need to close the gap between automated scanning and actual exploitability should choose Fluid Attacks Continuous Hacking for its hybrid model: AI-powered SAST, DAST, and SCA paired with certified pentesters who validate findings in real environments. The combination directly addresses NIST ID.RA Risk Assessment by separating signal from noise; organizations report substantially lower false positive rates than pure automation, which means developers actually fix vulnerabilities instead of ignoring them. Skip this if your mandate is supply chain risk management or you need deep SBOM compliance; Fluid Attacks prioritizes code and runtime posture over third-party dependency governance.