Com Olho Bug Bounty Program vs Inspectiv Bug Bounty Program: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Com Olho Bug Bounty Program

Mid-market and enterprise security teams that want to outsource vulnerability discovery without building an internal bug bounty operation should evaluate Com Olho Bug Bounty Program; its strength lies in researcher reward management and continuous assessment across web applications, APIs, and infrastructure, not just one attack surface. The platform maps directly to NIST ID.RA and ID.AM, meaning you get structured risk discovery tied to your actual asset inventory rather than ad-hoc findings. Skip this if you need a managed security testing service with guaranteed SLAs or if your organization lacks the internal capacity to triage and remediate reported bugs quickly; Com Olho works best when you have security staff ready to act on inbound disclosures.

Inspectiv Bug Bounty Program

Mid-market and enterprise security teams tired of managing researcher chaos will appreciate Inspectiv Bug Bounty Program's flat-fee model and mandatory triage layer that validates every submission before it hits your backlog. The 24/7 human-led validation and retesting cycle removes the noise that kills bug bounty programs internally; you pay one price and get qualified findings, not a firehose of duplicates and out-of-scope noise. Skip this if you need a self-service crowdsourced program where researchers work on commission and you handle all coordination yourself; Inspectiv trades researcher volume for submission quality and management overhead reduction.