SauronSec
Home / Comparison
Automated scanner, manual pentest, or SauronSec?
Three ways to test a website’s security, each with strengths and limits. The honest comparison, without disparaging anyone — every approach has its place.
| Classic automated scanner | Manual pentest | SauronSec | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turnaround | Fast (minutes) | Slow (1–3 weeks) | Fast (24–48 h) |
| Cost | Low | High (thousands €) | Fixed & transparent |
| False positives | Many — manual triage | Rare | Zero (OWASP benchmark) |
| Every flaw proven (replay) | No | Yes | Yes — automated |
| Broad technical coverage | Yes | Time-dependent | 68 modules |
| Business logic & IDOR | Weak | Excellent | Via in-depth audit |
| Plain-language report | Raw, technical | Varies | Yes — no jargon |
| Guaranteed non-destructive | Varies | Depends on provider | Yes — by design |
| CI integration (SARIF) | Sometimes | No | Yes |
| Repeatable on demand | Yes | No (one-off) | Yes |
Advantage
Nuanced / context-dependent
Limit
In short
The best of both worlds.
A scanner’s speed
Automated, broad, repeatable, affordable. You don’t wait three weeks for a first verdict.
A pentester’s rigour
Every flaw is proven by replay before being reported. Zero false positives, like a meticulous human.
And humans on demand
Need business logic, complex IDOR, attack chaining? The in-depth audit adds a pentester’s eye.
SauronSec also fits your existing tools: it can hand each SQLi to sqlmap, widen CVE coverage with Nuclei, and export SARIF for your CI. It complements your expertise, it doesn’t replace it.
The right level of testing, right now.
An express scan today, an in-depth audit when the context calls for it.