Boman.ai Boman vs Fluid Attacks Continuous Hacking: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Boman.ai Boman

Startup and SMB security teams that need to consolidate scanning results across multiple tools without hiring a security analyst will find real value in Boman.ai Boman's AI-driven triage and remediation guidance. The platform covers PR.PS and ID.RA functions, meaning it handles both vulnerability discovery and the analytics work that usually requires manual effort. Skip this if you're a large enterprise with mature DevSecOps practices already embedded in CI/CD pipelines; Boman's strength is reducing noise for teams with limited staffing, not replacing an established scanning infrastructure.

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.