AISafe Labs and Aikido both find security issues in your code and your running application, but they're built around very different ideas:
Aikido is an all-in-one application security platform that covers code, dependencies, cloud and runtime, with AI pentests added on top.
AISafe Labs is a state-of-the-art, autonomous and continuous application security platform, powered by code audits and penetration tests that follow a unique methodology built on hackers' expertise, at scale and machine speed.
In this post, we'll cover these differences in more detail, show what each tool found when we ran both against the same open-source application, and answer frequently asked questions about both tools.
This comparison was published on November 8, 2026 and reflects the tools as we tested them then. Pricing and features change often, so check each vendor’s current pages for the latest.
How is AISafe Labs different from Aikido?
1. It covers the complete security cycle
Aikido finds issues and can open AutoFix pull requests. It retests a pentest finding once you have deployed the fix to the environment it tested.
AISafe Labs doesn't stop at finding security issues. Every finding comes with remediation guidance, and Verify fixes (in beta) checks a patched source revision against the original finding before you deploy it. Findings, remediation guidance and fix verification are all available through the AISafe API, so your coding agents can read a finding, write the patch and start the verification themselves, inside your normal development flow.
2. It goes deep on your application
Aikido spreads across many security surfaces: code, dependencies, cloud and runtime.
AISafe Labs concentrates on the application itself. Its agents build a model of your codebase and trace user input from where it enters to where it reaches a sensitive operation. That is how they find the flaws that depend on how your app is meant to behave, such as broken access control between teams and business-logic errors. A separate triage pass then confirms each finding, merges duplicates that share a root cause and shows its reasoning.
Ready to secure your app?
Comparing AISafe Labs and Aikido
Verdict
Pick AISafe Labs if you:
- want to test your application from a real attacker's perspective
- expect a meticulous audit of your entire codebase, with no false positives to triage
- value a solution that not only reports issues but helps you remediate them and validate the fixes
- want security that runs continuously, reviewing every change across your CI/CD pipeline and developer workflow
Pick Aikido if you:
- are looking for a firewall: Zen, Aikido's in-app firewall, runs inside your application and blocks attacks and bots in production
- need cloud posture management across AWS, GCP and Azure, or container image scanning, which AISafe Labs does not offer
- want a tool to write the fixes for you: Aikido's AutoFix opens the pull requests itself, while AISafe Labs hands findings and remediation guidance to your own coding agent, which already knows your codebase
How we tested
We ran AISafe Labs and Aikido against the same commit of an open-source application, then checked every finding against the source code. Every tool in the benchmark, including AISafe Labs, was scored with the same rules.
- Target: a production open-source web application written in TypeScript, about 310,000 lines in 2,368 TypeScript and JavaScript files. Both tools scanned the same unmodified commit.
- AISafe Labs: Code Audit with default settings, run on 4 November 2026.
- Aikido: Aikido AI Code Analysis (shown as Full AI Code Analysis in Aikido's app) with default settings, run on 5 November 2026.
- Verdicts: we traced each finding through the code and gave it one of three verdicts. A real vulnerability is a flaw an attacker can exploit, rated with CVSS 3.1. An informational finding is accurate but not exploitable, such as hardening advice or behaviour the application intends. A false positive is a claim the code does not support.
Results
Aikido reported 561 issues. Of the 561, 33 were real issues. AISafe Labs reported 42 findings, of which 22 were exploitable issues.
 | Aikido | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 561 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 15 |
| Informational | 20 | 103 |
| False positives | 0 | 7 |
Where Aikido did well. Aikido was strong on access control and authentication. It found 8 real vulnerabilities , including organisation SSO account bindings that survive a change of identity provider, account pre-hijacking through email signup, and recipient signing links that stay valid after the recipient is replaced. Only about 6% of the findings were wrong.
Where Aikido tended to miss. The cost is volume. Aikido reported 561 issues for one application, and about two thirds of them were informational: CI hygiene, development-only configuration, logging and behaviour the app intends. Among the issues reported, it also missed 9 of the vulnerabilities AISafe Labs found, such as document lists that return other recipients' signing tokens, bulk updates that delete already-signed recipients, and concurrent requests that exceed team and seat limits.
Feature comparison
This table covers each product as its vendor describes it, including parts we did not run in the benchmark.
| Feature | | Aikido |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | Paid plans |
| AI SAST | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | ✓ |
| IaC scanning | ✓ | ✓ |
| Black-box pentest | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| White-box pentest | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Continuous monitoring | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Proof of exploitation | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| PR security review | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Fix suggestions | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Jira and Linear sync | Paid plans | Paid plans |
| Self-hosted option | ✓ | Partial |
✓ available, including on free plans · Paid plans: not on the free plan · ✗ not offered · Not stated: the vendor’s own pages do not say. Checked against each vendor's own pages on 10 November 2026.
Pricing comparison
The two products charge for different things, so the table compares how each one bills and works through two examples from list prices.
| Aikido | |
|---|---|---|
| How it is billed | Credits at $1 each. A code audit is priced by its lines of code and tokens, and the exact cost is shown before it starts | A flat monthly fee for each block of 10 users, plus credits at $1 each for AI Code Analysis and pentests |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | Developer plan: 2 users, 10 repos, 10 AutoFixes a month, no monthly credits |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | For 10 users: Basic $350, Pro $700, Advanced $1,050 a month, with 25, 100 or 200 credits a month; 10% off yearly |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | Custom; Aikido Max adds unlimited AI credits under fair use, by quote |
| Example: 10 developers, 20 private repositories, one month | $40 a month on Pro ($30 billed yearly), including 40 credits. Code audits of the repositories are extra and priced by their size | $350 a month on Basic ($315 billed yearly), including 25 credits. AI Code Analysis credits beyond those are extra |
| Example: one full scan of a 300,000-line codebase | Priced by code size; the exact cost is shown before you start | Quoted in credits in the app, with no published rate. Our benchmark application was quoted 512 credits |
List prices in US dollars, before discounts and tax, from each vendor's own pricing page on 10 November 2026. The examples use list prices only.
FAQ
Aikido is a broad security platform that covers code, dependencies, cloud and runtime, and its AI Code Analysis reports a large number of findings for you to triage. AISafe Labs concentrates on your application and validates each finding before reporting it, so more of what it reports is a real vulnerability.
It depends on how you use them. Aikido quoted 512 credits for a Full AI Code Analysis of our benchmark repository, and prices a standard pentest at 4,000 credits ($4,000). AISafe Labs bills in credits and has a free Basic plan, so compare the pricing pages for your own repository size.
For auditing your own application's code and logic, AISafe Labs is built for that job. Aikido still covers areas AISafe Labs does not, such as cloud and runtime security, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes. Aikido covers dependencies, cloud and runtime across your company, and AISafe Labs audits your application's code and logic in depth as well as dependencies and security monitoring.
Yes, Aikido has a free plan. Check the pricing table above for what it includes.
