Oryon Flow vs XBOW

1. 01

   Continue through to the source change

   Flow includes repair candidates and reviewable PRs in its journey; XBOW documents mitigations for your team to apply and retest.

2. 02

   Investigate in a rebuilt laboratory

   Flow starts from the repository and prepares an isolated target. XBOW assesses the deployed application you provide.

3. 03

   Connect changes with requirements

   Flow retains technical evidence per requirement and compares current code with the projection from verified PRs.

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	XBOW
Repository investigation	✓Documented Source, packages, infrastructure and runtime connected in one investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Source code and documentation uploads can guide the assessment; this is optional. ↗
Reconstructed test environment	✓Documented Rebuilds the application in ephemeral, isolated environments from the original repository.	—Not documented in this scope Tests a customer-provided deployment. Automatic reconstruction from a repository is not established in these docs. ↗
Finding verification	✓Documented Independently reviewed proof method: confirmed, refuted or inconclusive. Missing proof remains an open question.	✓Documented Exploit proof uses deterministic validators or agents by vulnerability class; validated and informational findings are distinct. ↗
Fixes backed by tests	✓Documented Isolated candidates; checks security and legitimate behavior before an independent review.	—Not documented in this scope Documents mitigations and retests after customer remediation; patch generation is not established. ↗
Reviewable pull requests	✓Documented Groups changes by cause and compatibility into reviewable PRs. Your team decides the merge.	—Not documented in this scope Documents external ticket tracking; publishing fix PRs is not established in these sources. ↗
Traceable technical evidence	✓Documented Links proofs and changes to technical requirements; compares current evidence with the projection from verified PRs.	✓Documented Proofs, traces, pentest reports, executive summaries and letters of attestation. ↗
Source + runtime analysis	✓Documented Connects source, dependency, infrastructure and dynamic observations in the same investigation.	+Optional / plan dependent Source uploads inform live attacks; a separate SAST scanner is not established. ↗
Authenticated role testing	✓Documented Checks legitimate sessions, roles and tenant boundaries; unreachable or expired sessions remain coverage gaps.	+Optional / plan dependent IDOR public preview supports a primary account and up to four extra accounts with role context. ↗
Separate validation	✓Documented The proposing agent does not approve its own conclusion or fix; a separate verification step evaluates retained evidence.	✓Documented Non-AI validators confirm supported classes; other classes use agent validation. ↗
Functional regression checks	✓Documented Compares security proofs, legitimate controls and available functional tests with the original before delivery.	—Not documented in this scope Retests verify a deployed mitigation; functional tests of a proposed patch are not documented. ↗
Dependency fixes	✓Documented Repair candidates can update the dependency graph and adapt application code, subject to validation.	—Not documented in this scope Provides mitigation instructions; automated package updates are not established in this workflow. ↗
Technical requirement mapping	✓Documented Links retained evidence to selected technical requirements and shows current versus proposed coverage; this is not organizational certification.	—Not documented in this scope Reports and attestations support audits; requirement-by-requirement mapping is not established. ↗

Product scope