Fencer vs XBOW
Fencer and XBOW both run fully autonomous AI pen tests that prove exploits with reproducible evidence. XBOW is a web and API exploitation engine that hands the proven finding to your team to fix. Fencer proves exploits across the whole stack and then applies the fix, opening pull requests for code and correcting cloud misconfigurations through the provider API, at published pricing. XBOW’s strength is provable web and API exploit quality; Fencer’s is proving and then closing the finding, across more of your stack, at a price you can see.
Lean software teams that want proven exploits closed with applied fixes across the whole stack, at published pricing.
Teams that want dedicated autonomous web and API exploitation (and the budget to match), and who have dedicated in-house resources to remediate findings.
AI penetration testing: does it prove real exploits?
The core of AI penetration testing is proving a vulnerability by exploiting it. Both tools prove exploits with reproducible evidence, so treat this as a shared strength.
- Proves exploits end to end with evidence and a PDF report
- Marks a finding high or critical only when it actually exploited it, otherwise it confirms reachability
- Proves exploits with reproducible working exploits
Vulnerability remediation: does it fix, or hand it off?
Proving an exploit is step one; closing it is the outcome. This is the clearest difference between the two.
- Applies the fix: pull requests for code, cloud misconfigurations corrected via the provider API, then re-tests
- Delivers developer-ready remediation guidance and a re-test
- Does not open pull requests or change cloud configuration
Attack surface: web and API only, or the whole stack?
Coverage decides how much of your stack one tool secures. XBOW concentrates on web and API; Fencer spans the software stack.
- Whole stack: code, dependencies, secrets, containers, cloud, network, endpoints, running app, domains, and SaaS
- Web and API only
- No network, cloud, container, dependency, or secret coverage
Finding handling: a fix in the workflow, or a case file?
What a tool hands back decides how much work a lean team without a security function still has to do.
- Routes fixes into the developer workflow as pull requests
- No separate triage or routing step for a security team
- Delivers a proven finding for a security team to route and remediate
Pricing: published pricing or a sales quote?
Whether pricing is published tells a lean team if it can evaluate without a sales cycle. XBOW has moved to usage-based quoting.
- Published pricing: the AI-led pen test is $3,000 one-time or included on the platform plans
- Usage-based pricing, quoted through sales or a cloud marketplace
Fencer vs XBOW: feature comparison
| Criterion | Fencer | XBOW |
|---|---|---|
| Proves exploits | Yes | Yes |
| Fixes the vulnerabilities | Applies fixes: pull requests for code, cloud corrected directly | Remediation guidance and a re-test; your team fixes |
| Attack surface | Whole software stack | Web and API only |
| Cadence and timing | On demand, full report in hours | On demand, full report in about five business days |
| Pricing | $3,000 or included on platform plans | Usage-based quote |
| Built for | Lean software teams | Security teams that manage remediation in-house |
Pros and cons of Fencer
Pros
- Proves exploits and then applies the fix
- Covers the whole stack, not just web and API
- Routes fixes into the developer workflow as pull requests
- On-demand and continuous testing
- Exploit-gated severity, so criticals are proven
- Published pricing
Cons
- Not singularly specialized in web and API exploit depth
- Smaller brand
Pros and cons of XBOW
Pros
- Focuses exclusively on web and API exploitation depth
- Reproducible working exploits with near-zero false positives claimed
- Well funded, with strong momentum
Cons
- Does not apply fixes (guidance and re-test only)
- Web and API only, no wider stack coverage
- Moved to usage-based quote pricing
- Findings land as a case file for a security team to route
When Fencer is the better fit
Fencer is the better fit for a lean software team that wants proven exploits closed across the whole stack, with fixes delivered as pull requests, at a visible price, and without a security team to route findings.
When XBOW is the better fit
XBOW is the better fit for a team that wants dedicated autonomous web and API exploitation, is comfortable applying the fixes itself, and runs separate tools for the rest of its stack.