Oryon Flow vs Pentera

1. 01

   Investigate the code behind the exposure

   Flow brings source, packages and runtime into the same case instead of starting only from the deployed attack surface.

2. 02

   Produce the patch, with its proof

   Flow prepares source changes and reviewable PRs; Resolve assigns and verifies remediation performed by teams or integrations.

3. 03

   Test the change before the handoff

   Flow checks repaired behavior against the original baseline before delivery.

Capabilities, side by side.

The table describes documented features; it does not measure performance or detection quality. Commercial features may depend on product, plan and configuration.

What you need	Oryon Flow	Pentera
Repository investigation	✓Documented Source, packages, infrastructure and runtime connected in one investigation.	—Not documented in this scope The web product explicitly focuses on dynamic attacker-led testing, not static source-code analysis. ↗
Reconstructed test environment	✓Documented Rebuilds the application in ephemeral, isolated environments from the original repository.	—Not documented in this scope Tests customer environments under configured controls; repository-to-target reconstruction is not documented. ↗
Finding verification	✓Documented Independently reviewed proof method: confirmed, refuted or inconclusive. Missing proof remains an open question.	✓Documented Deterministic tools confirm outcomes from adaptive web attacks. ↗
Fixes backed by tests	✓Documented Isolated candidates; checks security and legitimate behavior before an independent review.	◇Engine integration Resolve assigns, tracks and verifies fixes performed by customer teams or integrated tools. ↗
Reviewable pull requests	✓Documented Groups changes by cause and compatibility into reviewable PRs. Your team decides the merge.	—Not documented in this scope Documents connected remediation tracking; native application patch PRs are not established. ↗
Traceable technical evidence	✓Documented Links proofs and changes to technical requirements; compares current evidence with the projection from verified PRs.	✓Documented Attack evidence, remediation ownership and revalidation provide an auditable resolution record. ↗
Source + runtime analysis	✓Documented Connects source, dependency, infrastructure and dynamic observations in the same investigation.	—Not documented in this scope Documents dynamic application testing; source scanning is outside this web-testing scope. ↗
Authenticated role testing	✓Documented Checks legitimate sessions, roles and tenant boundaries; unreachable or expired sessions remain coverage gaps.	✓Documented Tests SSO/MFA/OAuth, privilege transitions, IDOR and cross-tenant access. ↗
Separate validation	✓Documented The proposing agent does not approve its own conclusion or fix; a separate verification step evaluates retained evidence.	✓Documented Deterministic confirmation is separated from AI-selected attack execution. ↗
Functional regression checks	✓Documented Compares security proofs, legitimate controls and available functional tests with the original before delivery.	—Not documented in this scope Revalidation checks exposure reduction; source-patch functional regression checks are not specified. ↗
Dependency fixes	✓Documented Repair candidates can update the dependency graph and adapt application code, subject to validation.	—Not documented in this scope Remediation integrations can coordinate patching; native package-resolution changes are not specified. ↗
Technical requirement mapping	✓Documented Links retained evidence to selected technical requirements and shows current versus proposed coverage; this is not organizational certification.	+Optional / plan dependent Documents ATT&CK mapping and compliance reporting; requirement coverage depends on the assessment. ↗

Product scope