Secure.com vs Radiant Security
Radiant Security runs point in time penetration tests and hands back a report. Secure.com's Red Teammate tests continuously, then hardens what it finds and retests to prove the fix held, under your team's approval.
Last reviewed: September 2026
- Continuous testing
- Above your stack
- Human approval on every action
The short version
Choose Secure.com's Red Teammate if you need continuous testing carried through to a proven fix, not a point in time report your team still has to action.
Radiant Security delivers human led penetration testing, code review, and advisory as scheduled engagements that end in a report. Secure.com's Red Teammate carries the work further. It attacks continuously within your approved scope, validates what is exploitable, then hardens the finding, retests, and preserves the proof, with an approval gate on every consequential action and a complete audit trail. In Secure.com's own buyer research, grunt work surfaced unprompted in 10 of 14 security leader interviews. A report that waits in a backlog is that work.
Your team sets the rules. The Teammate works inside them.
Who each option is for
Choose Secure.com if
- You want continuous testing that revalidates as your environment changes, not a yearly snapshot.
- You want findings carried into a governed, retested fix, not handed back as a report to action.
- You want offense, defense, and evidence on one platform above your existing stack.
Choose Radiant Security if
- A point in time, human led penetration test for one system or compliance cycle is the job today.
- You want bespoke manual testing and advisory from named consultants on a defined scope.
- Deep human expertise on a single engagement is the specific thing you need.
Why a point in time pen test leaves gaps
A scheduled test captures one moment. Your environment keeps changing after the testers leave, and the report becomes a to do list your team still has to work. The gaps show up fast.
A snapshot, not a signal.
A booked test reflects the day it ran. New code, new assets, and fresh exposure after that day stay unseen until the next engagement.
The report is where the work starts.
Findings arrive as a document. Your team still has to prioritize each one, fix it, and confirm the fix held.
Retest is usually extra.
Confirming the fix worked is often a separate booking, so the proof lags behind the remediation.
Coverage waits on the calendar.
Testing happens when consultants are booked, not when a change ships or an alert fires.
AI Teammates attack your defenses, harden what they find, and hand your team back hundreds of hours every month.
What gaps Secure.com fills
Continuous revalidation
The Red Teammate keeps testing as your environment changes. A booked engagement tests the day it runs, then it ends.
From finding to governed fix
Secure.com hardens what it finds and executes remediation behind an approval gate. A consultancy hands the findings back for your team to action.
Retest and proof, built in
The platform retests after remediation and keeps before and after evidence. With an engagement, the retest is usually a separate booking.
One platform across the lifecycle
Offense feeds SOC, cloud, and application security on shared context. Separate engagements do not share a live model.
A live audit trail
Every action is logged to a SOC 2 aligned trail as the work happens. An engagement produces a report at the end of the window.
The full comparison
Three views: what each does, how each delivers, and where each fits. Every cell is a real sentence, not a checkmark.
Table A — By capability
Secure.com vs. Radiant Security — offensive security capability comparison (2026).
| Evaluation layer | Secure.com (Red Teammate) | Radiant Security |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | A Red Teammate runs on the Secure.com platform and tests within your approved scope. | Human consultants deliver testing during a booked engagement window. |
| Cadence | Continuous testing and revalidation, not a single snapshot in time. | Point in time engagements, scheduled per project or compliance cycle. |
| Scope and context | Works from a live model of your assets, exposure, and prior findings across cases. | Scope is defined per statement of work for that engagement. |
| Exploit validation | Validates what is exploitable and the attack path, then prioritizes by real risk. | Manual exploitation and validation by experienced testers within scope. |
| From finding to fix | Carries findings into governed hardening and remediation, not just a report. | Delivers findings and remediation guidance; your team executes the fixes. |
| Retest and proof | Retests after remediation and preserves before and after evidence. | Retest is typically a separate engagement; Radiant's retest policy is not stated publicly at the time of review. |
| Governed execution | Read, recommend, and remediate privileges are explicit, with an approval gate on consequential actions. | Consultants recommend; execution and approval sit with your team. |
| Evidence and audit | Every action is logged to a SOC 2 aligned audit trail, demonstrable in product. | Evidence is the engagement report; certifications are not stated in Radiant's public materials at the time of review. |
| Coverage beyond offense | Findings feed defensive Teammates across SOC, cloud, and application security. | Consulting, code review, training, and incident response run as separate services. |
Table B — By engagement model
Secure.com vs. Radiant Security — delivery and operating model (2026).
| Dimension | Secure.com (Red Teammate) | Radiant Security |
|---|---|---|
| How it is delivered | Software Teammates on the Secure.com platform, above the stack you already own. | Human led professional services engagements. |
| Operating model | Self operated, Expert Activation, or fully managed by Secure.com. | Delivered by Radiant's consultants for the length of the engagement. |
| Time to first value | Live in days; testing begins once scope and approvals are set. | Depends on scheduling and consultant availability; lead times are not published. |
| Scaling | Scales with software; add coverage without booking more consultant time. | Scales by adding consultant hours and further engagements. |
| Fits your stack | 200+ integrations across SIEM, EDR, IAM, cloud, and ticketing. | Findings are delivered to your team; tooling stays with you. |
| Pricing model | Custom quote through a sales conversation; start with one Teammate. | Quoted per engagement; pricing is not published. |
Table C — By use case coverage
Secure.com vs. Radiant Security — use case coverage (2026).
| Use case | Secure.com (Red Teammate) | Radiant Security |
|---|---|---|
| Penetration testing | Yes. Continuous testing within your approved scope. | Yes. A core service, delivered by human testers. |
| Threat emulation | Yes. Adversary emulation and detection validation, run continuously. | Yes. Delivered as a scoped engagement. |
| Secure code review | Owned by the AppSec Teammate, tied to exploitability and fixes. | Yes. Manual review by consultants. |
| Incident response | Owned by the SOC Teammate: triage, investigation, and governed response. | Offered as a service; retainer terms are not published. |
| Fix, retest, and proof | Yes. Hardens what is found and retests to prove the fix held. | Remediation guidance provided; execution and retest sit with your team. |
| Training and advisory | Available through Expert Activation and advisory alongside the product. | Yes. Training and security consulting are core services. |
Start continuous testing without a rebuild
You don't replace your testing program to start. You add one Teammate to the tools you already run and expand only once it earns the next step.
Find the right starting point
A security context discovery maps your environment and recommends the first Teammate to deploy.
Reach first value with experts
Expert Activation configures and tunes the Red Teammate against a guaranteed time to value.
Keep your stack
200+ integrations mean no rip and replace of the SIEM, EDR, or IAM you already run.
Expand when ready
Add Teammates across offense and defense as trust and ROI are established.
Frequently Asked Questions
See the Red Teammate
close the loop
Start with one Teammate on your existing stack. Attack, harden, prove, and retest, governed by your rules.
This comparison reflects publicly available information about Radiant Security (the security consultancy at radiant.security) as of September 2026. Secure.com is not affiliated with Radiant Security. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
See how Secure.com compares with the rest of your shortlist
Every comparison follows the same structure, so you can weigh what each tool does, how it deploys, and where it fits on equal terms.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs Astra Security
Astra pairs automated scanning with certified pentesters. Secure.com validates exploitable risk too, and runs live defensive operations as well.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs AttackIQ
AttackIQ's AVA Agentic OS runs validation missions. Secure.com's Red Teammate validates too, and a team executes the fix at the root.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs Cymulate
Cymulate validates exposure and pushes updates to your controls. Secure.com's Red Teammate validates too, and a team fixes the root cause.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs NodeZero
NodeZero proves exploitable attack paths. Secure.com's Red Teammate proves them too, then executes the governed fix and retests to prove it held.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs Pentera
Pentera validates what is exploitable. Secure.com's Red Teammate validates it too, then carries the finding to a governed, retested fix.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs Picus Security
Picus proves what attackers can exploit and what your defenses stop. Secure.com validates that too, and runs live defensive operations as well.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs RidgeBot
RidgeBot safely exploits vulnerabilities across your IT environment. Secure.com's Red Teammate validates too, then a team fixes each finding.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs SafeBreach
SafeBreach runs CTEM on breach and attack simulation. Secure.com's Red Teammate validates too, and a team executes the fix at the root.
- Offensive security
Secure.com vs XBOW
XBOW proves exploitability across web apps and APIs. Secure.com's Red Teammate proves it too, then a team fixes the root cause.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs BlinkOps
BlinkOps lets teams build AI agents and workflows. Secure.com gives you a team of AI Teammates that already own and run the security work.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs D3 Security
D3 Morpheus is an accountable agentic SOC with approval gates. Secure.com's SOC Teammate does that too, then adds offense, fixes, and a retest.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Dropzone AI
Dropzone AI investigates alerts to a verdict. Secure.com's SOC Teammate investigates, acts, retests, and proves it, with human approval on every action.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Exaforce
Exaforce is an agentic SOC on its own data layer. Secure.com's SOC Teammate works above your stack and adds offense, root cause fixes, and a retest.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Intezer
Intezer investigates every alert at forensic depth. Secure.com's SOC Teammate works the queue too, and offense decides what comes first.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Prophet Security
Prophet AI investigates every alert. Secure.com's SOC Teammate works the same queue, with offense deciding what gets worked first and fixes proven.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Swimlane
Swimlane routes every alert to the right level of AI. Secure.com's SOC Teammate adds offense, root cause fixes, and a retest to prove each fix.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Tines
Tines is a workflow platform every team builds on. Secure.com gives you a team of AI Teammates that already own and run the security work.
- AI SOC
Secure.com vs Torq
Torq automates the incident lifecycle. Secure.com's SOC Teammate investigates, acts, retests, and proves the fix, with human approval on every action.
- Application security
Secure.com vs Apiiro
Apiiro maps code risk with Deep Code Analysis. Secure.com's AppSec Teammate ties code risk to what an attacker can actually exploit, inside one team.
- Application security
Secure.com vs ArmorCode
ArmorCode correlates findings from 400+ tools. Secure.com is a team of AI Teammates that attacks to prove risk, fixes, and responds under your approval.
- Application security
Secure.com vs Cycode
Cycode is an agentic AppSec platform with native scanners. Secure.com's AppSec Teammate ties code risk to what an attacker can actually exploit.
- Application security
Secure.com vs OX Security
OX Security spans AI governance, code, pentesting, and cloud. Secure.com is a governed team of AI Teammates that adds a whole-environment SOC.
- Application security
Secure.com vs Snyk
Snyk is a developer-first AI security platform. Secure.com is a governed team of AI Teammates that adds a whole-environment SOC to the loop.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Defender for Cloud is a CNAPP inside the Microsoft ecosystem. Secure.com is a vendor-neutral team of AI Teammates that works above your stack.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs Orca Security
Orca is a leading agentless cloud security platform. Secure.com is a governed team of AI Teammates across offense and defense, over your whole environment.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs Prisma Cloud
Prisma Cloud links broad cloud security to Palo Alto's SOC. Secure.com is a vendor-neutral team of AI Teammates that works above your stack.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs Sysdig Secure
Sysdig Secure is a runtime CNAPP built on Falco. Secure.com is a team of AI Teammates that attacks, fixes, and responds under your approval.
- Cloud security
Secure.com vs Wiz
Wiz connects code, cloud, and runtime in one graph. Secure.com is a governed team of AI Teammates across offense and defense, over your whole environment.
- Security platform
Secure.com vs CrowdStrike
CrowdStrike Falcon runs an agentic SOC on its platform. Secure.com is a vendor-neutral team of AI Teammates working above your stack, including Falcon.