Mobb alternative — scanner + fixer in one
Mobb auto-fixes findings from your existing SAST via SARIF ingestion. Securie is the end-to-end platform — scan, verify, fix. Here's when each fits.
Mobb occupies an interesting spot in the SAST-adjacent market: an auto-fix layer that sits on top of an existing SAST tool. Plug in Snyk, Checkmarx, Veracode, or any SARIF-producing scanner; Mobb ingests the findings and proposes fixes. The pitch is that existing SAST tools are already deployed at enterprises and the bottleneck is not detection — it is remediation. Mobb's positioning acknowledges this and attacks only the remediation step.
For organizations with a mature SAST deployment and a remediation bottleneck, Mobb's approach is elegant. The existing SAST investment is preserved; only a new layer is added. For organizations starting from scratch or for teams where the SAST itself is the problem (false-positive noise, no framework-specific coverage), Mobb inherits the weaknesses of whatever SAST it sits on top of.
This page compares Mobb and Securie for teams evaluating auto-fix solutions. The core distinction is integrated-vs-layered: Securie runs the scan and the fix as a single loop with sandbox verification in between; Mobb accepts SAST findings as given and generates fixes without its own detection layer.
Why people leave Mobb
- Mobb requires an existing SAST tool as input; it's an auto-fix layer on top
- 75% fix accuracy (per their marketing) — 25% of fixes need review
- No sandbox verification — accepts SAST findings as real
Where Mobb actually breaks down
Mobb requires an existing SAST — it is not a complete solution
Example: Mobb's architecture ingests SARIF output from Snyk Code, Checkmarx, Veracode, CodeQL, or similar. Without one of those tools already deployed, Mobb has nothing to fix. For a team choosing its first SAST, Mobb is a second purchase decision layered on the first, not a first-purchase option.
Impact: Teams considering a security-tool consolidation find Mobb is additive rather than consolidating. The full stack becomes SAST + Mobb + GRC + whatever else, and the budgeting conversation has more line items not fewer.
Marketed fix accuracy is around 75%
Example: Mobb's marketing claims high fix accuracy, with public figures cited around 75%. The remaining 25% require manual review or re-work. For framework-specific bugs (Supabase RLS, Next.js middleware), the percentage is typically lower because the underlying SAST does not model framework semantics and Mobb's fix generation inherits that limitation.
Impact: Engineering teams still need a review step on every Mobb-generated fix, and the 25% that are wrong can introduce regressions if merged without checking. The automation is real but not complete, and the review burden on complex fixes is where the hidden cost lives.
No sandbox verification — fix quality depends on SAST precision
Example: Because Mobb does not execute the code or reproduce the exploit, its fix quality is bounded by the precision of the SAST finding it is fixing. If Snyk Code emits a false-positive SQL-injection finding, Mobb generates a fix for a non-existent bug; the fix might refactor safe code into more-complex-but-not-actually-more-secure code.
Impact: The 75% accuracy figure partly reflects false-positive SAST findings that Mobb processes as real. A sandbox layer would filter those before fix generation; without it, engineering time is spent reviewing fixes for bugs that did not exist.
No dedicated specialist coverage for AI-feature bugs
Example: Mobb's fix generation covers the pattern classes its upstream SAST produces. Prompt injection, Supabase RLS, agent tool-scope abuse — these are specialist bug classes that require specialist detection and specialist fix generation. Mobb can fix what the SAST finds; it cannot fix what the SAST does not find, and it does not add detection for AI-feature bugs.
Impact: Teams shipping AI-built applications adopt Mobb expecting help with the full bug class and find the coverage mirrors their SAST's coverage. AI-feature bugs remain uncovered regardless of Mobb's presence.
Why Securie instead
Scanner + fixer integrated
Securie doesn't need you to already run Snyk/CodeQL — it's both the scanner and the fixer, and the scanner + fixer share signal for higher accuracy.
Sandbox-verified means higher fix quality
Because Securie reproduces the bug first, the patch has a ground truth — it's tested against the exploit that actually exists.
Feature matrix — Mobb vs Securie
| Area | Mobb | Securie |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Auto-fix layer on top of SARIF-producing SAST | Integrated scan + verify + fix + attest |
| Detection | Inherits from upstream SAST | Specialist fleet with sandbox verification |
| Fix accuracy | ~75% per marketing; depends on SAST precision | Verified against reproduced exploit; higher effective accuracy |
| Supabase / AI-feature coverage | Inherited from SAST; typically absent | First-class specialists |
| Sandbox verification | None | Firecracker microVM per finding |
| Required upstream tools | Snyk / Checkmarx / Veracode / CodeQL | None — full stack |
| Deploy-gate | Not included | Vercel Integration deploy-gate |
| Attestation | Fix changelog | Signed in-toto + SLSA per scan |
| Pricing model | Custom; typically enterprise contract | Free during early access; founding-rate after |
The deeper tradeoff
Mobb and Securie address the same engineering pain — remediation is slow — with opposite architectures. Mobb bets that teams already have a SAST and need help closing the fix loop faster. Securie bets that the SAST-first architecture produces too much noise and the fix loop should be integrated with the scanning so the fix has ground truth.
The Mobb bet pays off for organizations with a significant existing SAST investment and a clear remediation bottleneck. For a large enterprise with Checkmarx deployed for five years, a backlog of 3,000 findings, and a security team asked to reduce the backlog without a platform change, Mobb's add-on layer is a reasonable bolt-on. The consolidation argument does not apply because consolidation is not on the table.
The Securie bet pays off for organizations starting from scratch or willing to replatform. For a startup choosing its first security tool, a single integrated platform that scans, verifies, fixes, and attests in one loop is simpler, cheaper, and higher-precision than SAST + Mobb + GRC + AIBOM. The sandbox verification step in particular is the architectural difference: because Securie verifies the bug before generating a fix, the fix has a test case and can be iterated until the test case fails. Mobb cannot do this because it does not run the code.
For AI-built applications specifically, the Securie architecture is materially advantaged: the bugs are framework-specific, the patterns are noisy, and the fixes must understand framework conventions. An auto-fix layer on top of a pattern SAST cannot generate Supabase RLS fixes that obey the USING / WITH CHECK distinction because the pattern SAST does not model the distinction. Only an integrated tool with framework-native specialists produces framework-native fixes.
Pricing
Mobb: custom. Securie: $0 during early access.
Migration path
- If you already use Mobb + SAST: run Securie alongside, compare fix quality
- If you don't have a SAST yet: Securie is the direct replacement — single install
Extended migration playbook
Step 1: Inventory your existing SAST investment
What: If you currently run Snyk Code, Checkmarx, Veracode, or CodeQL, document: (a) the annual cost, (b) the weekly finding volume, (c) the fraction of findings that become merged fixes, (d) the fraction of findings that become merged fixes without manual review.
Why: Mobb's value is additive to the existing SAST's value. If the existing SAST is already producing low-precision noise, Mobb amplifies the throughput of fix-generation on that noise. If the existing SAST is high-precision, Mobb's incremental lift is larger.
Gotchas: Conflating 'findings reviewed' with 'findings fixed' hides the signal. Many teams review 100% of findings but fix 10-15%; the 85% that are dismissed are the noise Mobb would also be running against.
Step 2: Evaluate Securie as a replacement for the full SAST + fix stack
What: Install Securie alongside your current SAST. Compare real-bug precision and fix quality per finding. Securie's sandbox pre-filter typically reduces finding volume 60-80% while raising real-bug rate from 15-30% to near 100%.
Why: The integrated architecture is often materially cheaper than SAST + Mobb layered, particularly for AI-built-app stacks where Securie's specialist depth is the differentiator.
Gotchas: Securie's launch scope is TypeScript + JavaScript on Next.js + Supabase + Vercel. If your existing SAST is running on Python, Go, Java, or C# codebases, Securie does not yet cover those and the comparison is limited to the TypeScript slice.
Step 3: Decide: layer Mobb on top of existing SAST, or consolidate to Securie
What: If your stack is polyglot, Mobb layered on your existing SAST is a pragmatic choice that preserves SAST investment and adds fix automation. If your stack is AI-built-app focused, Securie consolidates the stack into one tool and the total cost is usually lower.
Why: The right choice depends on whether the consolidation is technically feasible for your codebase. Consolidation is high-value when feasible; otherwise Mobb's layered approach is a reasonable second-best.
Gotchas: Sunk-cost bias on existing SAST contracts. Multi-year enterprise SAST contracts make mid-term migration painful. Time the evaluation to coincide with SAST renewal windows.
Pick Securie if…
You want one tool end-to-end.
Stay with Mobb if…
You're deeply integrated with another SAST and just want auto-fix on top.
Common questions during evaluation
Does Securie require me to already have a SAST?
No. Securie is the full stack — scanner, sandbox verifier, fixer, attestation producer. You do not need Snyk, Checkmarx, or any other upstream tool. For teams that already have a SAST deployed, Securie runs alongside during evaluation; you can consolidate afterward if the comparison supports it.
Can Securie ingest findings from my existing SAST the way Mobb does?
Not at launch. Securie's specialists run their own analysis rather than consuming SARIF from other scanners. Ingesting external SARIF for fix generation is a potential Series-A feature; currently Securie treats the code directly. If your use case is specifically 'I want fixes for my existing SAST findings without replacing the SAST', Mobb fits that use case more directly today.
What is the fix accuracy gap between Securie and Mobb?
Securie's fix accuracy is tied to the sandbox verification — a patch is only emitted when it stops the reproduced exploit, and the patch-and-verify loop iterates until success. In practice this produces near-100% accuracy on the bugs where the sandbox can reproduce the exploit. Mobb's 75% figure reflects a different measurement; the sandbox-verify loop is architecturally advantaged for fixes on framework-specific bugs.
Does Mobb cover Supabase RLS, BOLA, AI-features?
Mobb's coverage mirrors its upstream SAST's coverage. If the upstream SAST does not detect Supabase RLS bugs or prompt-injection bugs, Mobb has nothing to generate fixes for. Securie has dedicated specialists for each of these categories and generates the fix in the same loop as the detection.
Can I run Mobb on top of Securie?
It would be redundant. Securie's auto-fix is generated in the same loop as detection — the fix is already attached to every Securie finding before it reaches your PR. Adding Mobb would duplicate the fix-generation step. The architectures are incompatible in that sense.
What happens to Securie's fix when the sandbox cannot reproduce the exploit?
If the sandbox fails to reproduce the exploit, the finding is silently dropped rather than emitted with a lower-confidence fix. This is the zero-false-positive property; we would rather under-emit than ship fixes for non-bugs. Edge cases where reproduction requires infrastructure the sandbox cannot provide (specific cloud-provider behaviour, external service authentication) are logged for human review rather than auto-patched.
Verdict
Mobb is a reasonable add-on for organizations with a deployed SAST and a remediation bottleneck, particularly in polyglot enterprise environments where consolidation is not on the table. The 75% fix accuracy is honest, the SARIF ingestion is clean, and the product serves its stated purpose.
For teams with the option to consolidate — startups, AI-native application teams, anyone building their security stack fresh — Securie's integrated scan + verify + fix + attest loop produces higher-precision fixes at lower total cost. The sandbox verification step is the architectural difference; it is not an incremental improvement over Mobb's approach but a categorically different one.
The decision point is consolidation feasibility. If your existing SAST is locked in for several years and covers languages Securie does not yet support, Mobb layered on top is the pragmatic path. If consolidation is feasible and your stack is AI-native TypeScript, Securie is materially advantaged.