An explicit evidence level
Findings tell detected, reachable and confirmed apart. A reachable flow carries a witness anchored in the code, and a confirmation shows where it comes from: a pentester, a runtime test or DAST.
Comparison
Tamis and other
AppSec tools.
Six AppSec tools, compared from their public documentation. Written by the vendor of Tamis: check the sources.
Updated 9 October 2026 · by the Tamis team
The table
Reachability scopes differ across vendors (method, languages). “Partly”: open-source engine, proprietary platform.
| Criterion | Tamis | Aikido | Checkmarx One | Semgrep | Snyk | SonarQube |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is scanned | ||||||
| Code (SAST) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Dependencies (SCA) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, Advanced Security |
| Secrets | Yes | Yes | Yes, Enterprise | Yes | Yes, Enterprise | Yes |
| Infrastructure as code | Yes | Yes | Yes, Enterprise | Yes, Terraform | Yes | Yes |
| Containers | Yes | Yes | Yes, Professional | Not established | Yes | No (docs) |
| Deployed app (DAST) | Yes | Yes | Yes, Professional | Not established | Yes, Enterprise | No (docs) |
| SBOM export | Yes | Yes, paid | Yes | Yes | Yes, Enterprise | Yes, Advanced Security |
| License policies | Yes | Yes | Not established | Yes | Yes, Enterprise | Yes, Advanced Security |
| Prioritisation | ||||||
| Dependency reachability | Yes, 8 ecosystems | Announced | Yes, 4 languages | Yes, 11 languages | Yes, 3 languages | Yes, Advanced Security |
| AI fixes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, beta | Yes | Yes, Enterprise |
| Import from other tools | Yes, SARIF and 4 formats | Limited | Yes, SARIF | Not established | Not established | Yes, SARIF |
| Correlation | ||||||
| Deduplication across scanners | Yes | Not established | Grouping announced, ASPM | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Code linked to the deployed app (SAST and DAST) | In development | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Attack chains across findings | Yes, MITRE ATT&CK | Partly, cloud and containers | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| One flaw, every affected project | Yes | Not established | Not established | Yes, by dependency | Not established | CVE search, Enterprise |
| Hosting | ||||||
| SaaS in the EU | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes, Enterprise | Yes |
| Whole platform on premises | Yes | Not established | Yes, announced | Not established | No (docs) | Yes |
| Scanner on your side, SaaS results | In development | Yes | Not established | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source engine | Partly | Partly | Not established | Partly | Not established | Partly |
| Governance | ||||||
| SSO | Yes | Yes, paid | Yes | Yes, SAML Enterprise | Yes, Enterprise | Yes, paid |
| Reports per framework | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not established | Yes, Enterprise | Yes, Enterprise |
| Risks and evidence per project | Yes | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Beyond scanning | ||||||
| Threat modelling (DFD, STRIDE) | Yes | Not established | Via SD Elements, partner | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Architecture linked to findings | Yes, C4 and DFD | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Manual pentest tracking (WSTG, ASVS) and report | Yes | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| Autonomous AI pentesting | Yes | Yes, Aikido Attack | Not established | Not established | Yes, Evo | Not established |
| Retest of a fixed finding | Yes, supported scanners | Yes, AI pentest | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
| EBIOS RM workshops | Yes | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established | Not established |
- Autonomous AI pentesting: vendor sources checked on 9 October 2026.
- Sources: vendor documentation, accessed 5 October 2026 (list). Tamis: our checks in the product.
- “Not established” means the sources do not settle it, not that the feature is missing.
- No common benchmark of the commercial platforms was run for this comparison, and language counts are not counted the same way across vendors.
- Found a mistake? contact@tamis.app
What Tamis does differently
AI fixes that are re-scanned
For supported cases, the proposed fix is re-scanned on a copy of the code to check that the targeted finding is gone. The pull request only opens behind an approval bound to that fix.
Your data, your AI
A local model can give the first triage verdict; the cloud provider is optional and chosen by your administrators. Every suggestion stays a proposal until you decide.
One vulnerability, every affected application
When a shared component is vulnerable, Tamis shows the projects that use it and tracks, project by project, the decision, the fix and its evidence. The same risks and evidence feed your NIS2, DORA or ISO 27001 files.
SaaS at OVHcloud or Scaleway or on premises
SaaS run at OVHcloud or Scaleway in the European Union, or the whole platform on your infrastructure, air-gapped included.
Keep your current scanners
SARIF, Snyk, SonarQube, Nessus and Qualys reports are imported and tracked with the rest, without replacing what already works.
Not compared: detection precision, performance, administration, data sent to AI, total cost. Ask every vendor, Tamis included.