XBOW vs. Xint

Because of our similar backgrounds in offensive security, we are most often asked how we compare to XBOW. 

The biggest difference is that while XBOW can add source code context to runtime testing, it only provides dynamic application security testing (DAST) against live applications. 

Xint, on the other hand, covers both source code (white-box) and runtime (black-box) analysis. As a result, our customers get full attack surface coverage - first analyzing their code through static analysis and then validating it in the runtime environment to surface the real, exploitable vulnerabilities attackers care about. 

We deliver safe production deployment, post-fix retesting, and integration with business systems as a single, unified workflow. For product security teams, our reports are uniquely useful because of their:

• Context inclusion

• False positive reduction

• Finding of vulnerabilities that actually matter

Different tools will have different features, not all of which matter to a buyer - so it really comes down to 5 critical categories when comparing autonomous pentesting solutions:

1. How much of the attack surface does it cover?

2. Does it find all the types of bugs that matter (that is, that attackers target)?

3-5. How does it accelerate full triage (validation, prioritization, and remediation)?

Reach out to our sales team and they can share special offers we are providing through the end of 2026 for head-to-head comparisons with AI-enabled pentesting tools.