Ares vs Vulnerability Scanners
A list of what might be wrong, or proof of what actually is.
This page compares traditional vulnerability scanners: fast, broad tools that match your environment against a database of known vulnerabilities, with Ares, an offensive platform that proves every finding with a working exploit.
Ares vs Vulnerability Scanners
A list of what might be wrong, or proof of what actually is.
This page compares traditional vulnerability scanners: fast, broad tools that match your environment against a database of known vulnerabilities, with Ares, an offensive platform that proves every finding with a working exploit.
Ares vs Vulnerability Scanners
A list of what might be wrong, or proof of what actually is.
This page compares traditional vulnerability scanners: fast, broad tools that match your environment against a database of known vulnerabilities, with Ares, an offensive platform that proves every finding with a working exploit.
What each is built for
Detection, or proof.
A scanner gives you a list. Ares gives you proof. Scanners flag what might be exploitable; Ares shows what actually is, and the full path from entry to impact.
What vulnerability scanners are built for
Scanners are fast and broad. They crawl your environment, match what they find against a database of known vulnerabilities, and hand your team a long report of things that might be exploitable. That breadth has real value for tracking known CVEs at scale, but a scanner cannot tell you which findings a real attacker could actually use.
What Ares is built for
Ares investigates exploitable weaknesses in web, API, mobile, and supported AI services. Attack surface management and Shadow AI discovery broaden the inventory, while applicable MITRE ATLAS coverage and captured evidence inform authorized testing.
What each is built for
Detection, or proof.
A scanner gives you a list. Ares gives you proof. Scanners flag what might be exploitable; Ares shows what actually is, and the full path from entry to impact.
What vulnerability scanners are built for
Scanners are fast and broad. They crawl your environment, match what they find against a database of known vulnerabilities, and hand your team a long report of things that might be exploitable. That breadth has real value for tracking known CVEs at scale, but a scanner cannot tell you which findings a real attacker could actually use.
What Ares is built for
Ares investigates exploitable weaknesses in web, API, mobile, and supported AI services. Attack surface management and Shadow AI discovery broaden the inventory, while applicable MITRE ATLAS coverage and captured evidence inform authorized testing.
What each is built for
Detection, or proof.
A scanner gives you a list. Ares gives you proof. Scanners flag what might be exploitable; Ares shows what actually is, and the full path from entry to impact.
What vulnerability scanners are built for
Scanners are fast and broad. They crawl your environment, match what they find against a database of known vulnerabilities, and hand your team a long report of things that might be exploitable. That breadth has real value for tracking known CVEs at scale, but a scanner cannot tell you which findings a real attacker could actually use.
What Ares is built for
Ares investigates exploitable weaknesses in web, API, mobile, and supported AI services. Attack surface management and Shadow AI discovery broaden the inventory, while applicable MITRE ATLAS coverage and captured evidence inform authorized testing.
Decision snapshot
A quick read on which fits your goal.
Compare where scanners fit for broad, known-CVE coverage, and where Ares fits for proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
A scanner may be a fit if…
You need broad, fast coverage of known CVEs at scale.
You want a continuous inventory of known-vulnerability exposure.
Triaging a long list of potential issues is acceptable.
Ares may be a fit if…
You need application testing, Shadow AI discovery, and attack surface management.
APIs and mobile backends are your primary risk surface.
You need deep BOLA and OWASP API Top 10 coverage.
You need every finding proven with a working exploit.
Decision snapshot
A quick read on which fits your goal.
Compare where scanners fit for broad, known-CVE coverage, and where Ares fits for proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
A scanner may be a fit if…
You need broad, fast coverage of known CVEs at scale.
You want a continuous inventory of known-vulnerability exposure.
Triaging a long list of potential issues is acceptable.
Ares may be a fit if…
You need application testing, Shadow AI discovery, and attack surface management.
APIs and mobile backends are your primary risk surface.
You need deep BOLA and OWASP API Top 10 coverage.
You need every finding proven with a working exploit.
Decision snapshot
A quick read on which fits your goal.
Compare where scanners fit for broad, known-CVE coverage, and where Ares fits for proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
A scanner may be a fit if…
You need broad, fast coverage of known CVEs at scale.
You want a continuous inventory of known-vulnerability exposure.
Triaging a long list of potential issues is acceptable.
Ares may be a fit if…
You need application testing, Shadow AI discovery, and attack surface management.
APIs and mobile backends are your primary risk surface.
You need deep BOLA and OWASP API Top 10 coverage.
You need every finding proven with a working exploit.
Key differences
Where the difference actually shows up.
Scanners and Ares both look for weaknesses, but answer different questions. These are the areas where they separate.
Proof vs a list
A scanner flags potential issues and leaves you to triage false positives. Ares proves every finding with a working exploit.
Novel flaws, not just CVEs
Signature matching cannot reason about app logic. Ares discovers the BOLA and business logic flaws that have no signature yet.
Complete attack paths
A scanner reports isolated findings. Ares chains weaknesses into a full path from entry to impact.
Mobile in scope
Mobile apps are out of scope for the scanner category. Ares tests them today, following the real mobile-to-API path.
Key differences
Where the difference actually shows up.
Scanners and Ares both look for weaknesses, but answer different questions. These are the areas where they separate.
Proof vs a list
A scanner flags potential issues and leaves you to triage false positives. Ares proves every finding with a working exploit.
Novel flaws, not just CVEs
Signature matching cannot reason about app logic. Ares discovers the BOLA and business logic flaws that have no signature yet.
Complete attack paths
A scanner reports isolated findings. Ares chains weaknesses into a full path from entry to impact.
Mobile in scope
Mobile apps are out of scope for the scanner category. Ares tests them today, following the real mobile-to-API path.
Key differences
Where the difference actually shows up.
Scanners and Ares both look for weaknesses, but answer different questions. These are the areas where they separate.
Proof vs a list
A scanner flags potential issues and leaves you to triage false positives. Ares proves every finding with a working exploit.
Novel flaws, not just CVEs
Signature matching cannot reason about app logic. Ares discovers the BOLA and business logic flaws that have no signature yet.
Complete attack paths
A scanner reports isolated findings. Ares chains weaknesses into a full path from entry to impact.
Mobile in scope
Mobile apps are out of scope for the scanner category. Ares tests them today, following the real mobile-to-API path.
Side by side
Vulnerability scanners and Ares, compared.
Both look for weaknesses. The rows below show where coverage differs.
Capability
Vulnerability Scanners
Ares
Primary focus
Broad known-CVE detection
API-first exposure validation
Product type
Scanner
Offensive platform
API security testing
No, signature matching
Purpose-built, API-first
Web app testing
Signature-based only
Purpose-built
Mobile app testing
Not in scope
Tested today
Standalone API testing
Not offered
Available today
Confirms findings with a working exploit
No, flags potential issues
Yes, every finding proven
Exploit validation
Flags potential issues
Proves exploitability
Complete attack-path chaining
No, reports isolated findings
Yes, entry to impact
BOLA & business logic testing
No, signature matching only
Authored into product DNA
Novel flaws vs known CVEs
Known signatures only
Discovers what has no signature
Broad known-CVE coverage
Yes, their core strength
No, app-layer exploitation
Built for security & engineering teams
Security & engineering
Security & engineering
Side by side
Vulnerability scanners and Ares, compared.
Both look for weaknesses. The rows below show where coverage differs.
Capability
Vulnerability Scanners
Ares
Primary focus
Broad known-CVE detection
API-first exposure validation
Product type
Scanner
Offensive platform
API security testing
No, signature matching
Purpose-built, API-first
Web app testing
Signature-based only
Purpose-built
Mobile app testing
Not in scope
Tested today
Standalone API testing
Not offered
Available today
Confirms findings with a working exploit
No, flags potential issues
Yes, every finding proven
Exploit validation
Flags potential issues
Proves exploitability
Complete attack-path chaining
No, reports isolated findings
Yes, entry to impact
BOLA & business logic testing
No, signature matching only
Authored into product DNA
Novel flaws vs known CVEs
Known signatures only
Discovers what has no signature
Broad known-CVE coverage
Yes, their core strength
No, app-layer exploitation
Built for security & engineering teams
Security & engineering
Security & engineering
Side by side
Vulnerability scanners and Ares, compared.
Both look for weaknesses. The rows below show where coverage differs.
Capability
Vulnerability Scanners
Ares
Primary focus
Broad known-CVE detection
API-first exposure validation
Product type
Scanner
Offensive platform
API security testing
No, signature matching
Purpose-built, API-first
Web app testing
Signature-based only
Purpose-built
Mobile app testing
Not in scope
Tested today
Standalone API testing
Not offered
Available today
Confirms findings with a working exploit
No, flags potential issues
Yes, every finding proven
Exploit validation
Flags potential issues
Proves exploitability
Complete attack-path chaining
No, reports isolated findings
Yes, entry to impact
BOLA & business logic testing
No, signature matching only
Authored into product DNA
Novel flaws vs known CVEs
Known signatures only
Discovers what has no signature
Broad known-CVE coverage
Yes, their core strength
No, app-layer exploitation
Built for security & engineering teams
Security & engineering
Security & engineering
Use-case fit
Which option fits your use case?
A quick guide to where each is strongest: broad known-CVE coverage, or proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
Broad known-CVE coverage
Scanners
Autonomous exposure validation
Ares
App, AI & attack surface coverage
Ares
Proven, exploitable findings
Ares
Continuous known-vuln inventory
Scanners
Novel application-layer flaws
Ares
Use-case fit
Which option fits your use case?
A quick guide to where each is strongest: broad known-CVE coverage, or proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
Broad known-CVE coverage
Scanners
Autonomous exposure validation
Ares
App, AI & attack surface coverage
Ares
Proven, exploitable findings
Ares
Continuous known-vuln inventory
Scanners
Novel application-layer flaws
Ares
Use-case fit
Which option fits your use case?
A quick guide to where each is strongest: broad known-CVE coverage, or proving what a real attacker can actually exploit.
Broad known-CVE coverage
Scanners
Autonomous exposure validation
Ares
App, AI & attack surface coverage
Ares
Proven, exploitable findings
Ares
Continuous known-vuln inventory
Scanners
Novel application-layer flaws
Ares
TALK TO ASSAIL
Compare the evidence for yourself.
Discuss your evaluation criteria and how Ares fits your assessment workflow.
Your environment. Your objectives. A mission built around both.