Oryon Flow vs Terra Security

1. 01

   Rebuild before investigating

   Flow makes the application laboratory part of the repository workflow; Terra documents testing your running environment.

2. 02

   Check the behavior you need to keep

   Flow compares repair candidates with the original legitimate behavior before delivery.

3. 03

   Connect proof to the next decision

   Flow links confirmed, refuted and inconclusive results to selected requirements and proposed 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	Terra Security
Repository investigation	✓Documented Source, packages, infrastructure and runtime connected in one investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Connected source enables file-level root cause and remediation plans. ↗
Reconstructed test environment	✓Documented Rebuilds the application in ephemeral, isolated environments from the original repository.	—Not documented in this scope Tests live web applications; automatic reconstruction of the target from a repository is not documented. ↗
Finding verification	✓Documented Independently reviewed proof method: confirmed, refuted or inconclusive. Missing proof remains an open question.	✓Documented Agents confirm exploitability; human pentesters review findings through the documented verification workflow. ↗
Fixes backed by tests	✓Documented Isolated candidates; checks security and legitimate behavior before an independent review.	+Optional / plan dependent Source-aware remediation can generate a fix; the attack is replayed after deployment or merge. ↗
Reviewable pull requests	✓Documented Groups changes by cause and compatibility into reviewable PRs. Your team decides the merge.	+Optional / plan dependent Teams can open automated remediation PRs when source access is connected. ↗
Traceable technical evidence	✓Documented Links proofs and changes to technical requirements; compares current evidence with the projection from verified PRs.	✓Documented Agent actions and human decisions remain in a traceable audit trail. ↗
Source + runtime analysis	✓Documented Connects source, dependency, infrastructure and dynamic observations in the same investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Source context supplements live testing; dedicated SAST execution is not established by these pages. ↗
Authenticated role testing	✓Documented Checks legitimate sessions, roles and tenant boundaries; unreachable or expired sessions remain coverage gaps.	✓Documented Tests authenticated workflows, application authorization and business logic. ↗
Separate validation	✓Documented The proposing agent does not approve its own conclusion or fix; a separate verification step evaluates retained evidence.	✓Documented Double verification combines exploit validation and pentester review. ↗
Functional regression checks	✓Documented Compares security proofs, legitimate controls and available functional tests with the original before delivery.	—Not documented in this scope Documents attack replay after the fix; preservation of functional baselines before delivery is not specified. ↗
Dependency fixes	✓Documented Repair candidates can update the dependency graph and adapt application code, subject to validation.	—Not documented in this scope Source remediation is documented; automated dependency-resolution and upgrade coverage is 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 Traceable closure supports named audit frameworks; per-control mapping depends on assessment scope. ↗

Product scope