CodeLock vs Fluid Attacks Continuous Hacking: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

CodeLock

Government contractors and SMBs chasing NIST SP 800-218 SSDF compliance will find CodeLock cuts months off audit prep by embedding the actual framework requirements into the development workflow instead of bolting compliance on afterward. The tool maps directly to all SSDF practices and handles self-attestation documentation for federal software procurement, which matters because most teams waste cycles manually cross-referencing requirements to their processes. Skip this if your priority is runtime vulnerability detection or you need pan-platform CSPM coverage; CodeLock is narrowly built for the compliance-as-process crowd, not the threat hunters.

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.