Compare
HackZero vs.
manual pentest.
Manual penetration testing is older than continuous integration, and it still has a job. So does HackZero. Different jobs. Here is the honest breakdown.
Side by side
| Manual pentest | HackZero | |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Typically annual, or at major releases | Every month |
| Lead time | Weeks to schedule | Minutes |
| Cost | $20K to $50K per engagement | From $2,999 a month |
| Reads your code | Sometimes | Yes, via your repo |
| Deliverable | A static PDF report | Findings in your issue tracker |
| Re-test after a fix | A new engagement | Built in |
| Coverage between tests | Drifts for months | Stays current |
| Auditor acceptance | Yes, attestation letter | Yes, signed attestation per run |
| Mandated TLPT (DORA, CBEST) | Yes | No, complements between mandated tests |
Which one
Most programs need
both.
The mandated, human-led engagement for the auditor's signature, and HackZero every month between them to keep the picture current.
Hire a manual pentester when
- Your auditor requires a human-led engagement (DORA TLPT, CBEST, a formal NIST 800-53 assessment).
- You are threat-modelling novel architecture before release and want a creative human in the loop.
- You need adversary simulation across social engineering, physical, and network layers, not just web and API.
Run HackZero when
- You need continuous coverage between mandated annual tests.
- You ship to production often, and a once-a-year test no longer reflects what is live.
- You want findings in your tracker, not a PDF that ages out.
- Offensive security is a monthly line item, not a $20K to $50K engagement scheduled once a year.