Endor for SCA. Securie for the AppSec layers Endor doesn't cover.
Endor Labs is an SCA (Software Composition Analysis) leader — strong on dependency analysis. SCA is one slice of AppSec; Securie covers the rest (auth, RLS, BOLA, AI-features).
Endor's reachability analysis for dependencies is best-in-class. The gap: first-party code bugs (auth, BOLA, RLS) live outside SCA scope.
Why people leave Endor Labs
- Endor focuses on dependencies + reachability; doesn't scan first-party code for bugs
- No Supabase RLS or BOLA specialist
- No auto-fix PR for non-dependency bugs
Where Endor Labs actually breaks down
SCA-only focus
Example: Endor's reachability analysis applies to npm + pip + cargo dependencies, not first-party code.
Impact: BOLA on /api/orders/[id] is invisible to Endor.
No first-party specialist depth
Example: Auth, RLS, secrets, AI-features all uncovered.
Impact: Apr 2026 wave bug classes shipped under Endor coverage.
No auto-fix PR for non-dependency bugs
Example: Endor proposes dependency upgrades; can't fix first-party code.
Impact: Engineering velocity tax remains for first-party bugs.
Why Securie instead
First-party code coverage
Securie scans first-party code (auth, BOLA, RLS, secrets); Endor focuses on dependencies.
AI-built-app specialist depth
Supabase + Lovable + .claude/ patterns are first-party, not dependency-side.
Auto-fix PR + attestation chain
Securie ships fixes + signed evidence.
Feature matrix — Endor Labs vs Securie
| Area | Endor Labs | Securie |
|---|---|---|
| SCA reachability | Best-in-class | OSV.dev + reachability via intent-graph |
| First-party code scan | Limited | Yes — specialist fleet |
| Supabase RLS | No | Yes |
| Auto-fix PR | Dependency upgrades only | Both dependency + first-party |
| Pricing — Indie | N/A | $12/mo |
The deeper tradeoff
Endor Labs has built best-in-class SCA reachability — knowing whether a vulnerable dependency function is actually reachable from your application code is a hard problem and Endor solves it well. The thesis works for dependency-side risk.
The gap is everything not in dependencies. First-party auth bugs, BOLA, Supabase RLS misconfig, leaked .claude/ credentials, AI-feature prompt injection — all live in your own code, not in npm packages. SCA tools by definition don't cover this.
Most teams need both SCA + AppSec. Endor handles SCA cleanly; Securie covers the AppSec + AI-features layer Endor doesn't. The combined cost typically under-prices a single legacy SAST (Veracode / Checkmarx).
Pricing
Endor: enterprise pricing. Securie: $12-$299/mo.
Migration path
- Keep Endor for dependency / SCA reachability
- Add Securie for first-party + AI-built-app coverage
- Both run on the same PR
Extended migration playbook
Step 1: Keep Endor for SCA
What: No change.
Why: Endor's reachability is best-in-class.
Gotchas: Don't try to make Endor cover first-party bugs — wrong tool.
Step 2: Add Securie
What: GitHub App + deploy-gate.
Why: Covers first-party + AI-built-app layer.
Gotchas: Both scanners run on the same PR; configure both checks for branch protection.
Pick Securie if…
First-party code + auth + RLS + AI-features.
Stay with Endor Labs if…
Dependency reachability + SBOM at scale.
Common questions during evaluation
Should I run both?
Yes, in most cases. Endor SCA + Securie AppSec is the canonical pairing.
Does Securie do SCA?
Securie ships SBOM + AIBOM emission + OSV.dev cross-reference + reachability via intent-graph. Not as deep as Endor for SCA-specifically. The right combo is both.
How does pricing compare combined?
Endor enterprise + Securie Startup ($299/mo) is meaningfully less than a single legacy SAST (Veracode / Checkmarx).
Verdict
Endor Labs is the right SCA tool. It is not an AppSec / first-party-code tool. Securie covers the AppSec + AI-features layer. Most teams run both.