Oryon Flow vs Snyk Evo

1. 01

   One case from original to proposal

   Flow keeps the original application, reproduced risk and candidate change connected through the laboratory.

2. 02

   Explicit acceptance before generation

   Flow fixes the proof method and legitimate behavior controls before the repair agent proposes its patch.

3. 03

   Show the technical effect of the PR

   Flow relates evidence to selected requirements and distinguishes current results from the projection of verified changes.

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	Snyk Evo
Repository investigation	✓Documented Source, packages, infrastructure and runtime connected in one investigation.	✓Documented Builds application context from source, architecture, data flows and trust boundaries. ↗
Reconstructed test environment	✓Documented Rebuilds the application in ephemeral, isolated environments from the original repository.	—Not documented in this scope Provides hosted repair sandboxes with builds/tests; rebuilding the live pentest target is not established. ↗
Finding verification	✓Documented Independently reviewed proof method: confirmed, refuted or inconclusive. Missing proof remains an open question.	✓Documented Continuous Offensive Security provides reproducible exploit evidence. ↗
Fixes backed by tests	✓Documented Isolated candidates; checks security and legitimate behavior before an independent review.	+Optional / plan dependent Open Preview campaigns repair eligible dependency issues and validate builds, tests and rescans. ↗
Reviewable pull requests	✓Documented Groups changes by cause and compatibility into reviewable PRs. Your team decides the merge.	+Optional / plan dependent Remediation campaigns open reviewable PRs; preview access, workspace and SCM integration are required. ↗
Traceable technical evidence	✓Documented Links proofs and changes to technical requirements; compares current evidence with the projection from verified PRs.	✓Documented Captures agent decisions, exploit evidence and repair actions for review. ↗
Source + runtime analysis	✓Documented Connects source, dependency, infrastructure and dynamic observations in the same investigation.	✓Documented Agentic AppSec analyzes source; Continuous Offensive Security adds application attack testing. ↗
Authenticated role testing	✓Documented Checks legitimate sessions, roles and tenant boundaries; unreachable or expired sessions remain coverage gaps.	✓Documented Uses supplied credentials, checks sessions and tests authorization and privilege escalation in live applications. ↗
Separate validation	✓Documented The proposing agent does not approve its own conclusion or fix; a separate verification step evaluates retained evidence.	✓Documented Deterministic engines verify repairs; a separate model checks exploitability before COS reports findings. ↗
Functional regression checks	✓Documented Compares security proofs, legitimate controls and available functional tests with the original before delivery.	+Optional / plan dependent Hosted preview campaigns run builds and available tests, then rescan the proposed change. ↗
Dependency fixes	✓Documented Repair candidates can update the dependency graph and adapt application code, subject to validation.	+Optional / plan dependent Open Preview updates vulnerable dependencies and adapts affected application code. ↗
Technical requirement mapping	✓Documented Links retained evidence to selected technical requirements and shows current versus proposed coverage; this is not organizational certification.	↗Another suite product Evo AI-SPM maps model risks to OWASP, MITRE ATLAS and NIST; this differs from projecting application requirements from fix PRs. ↗

Product scope