Securie vs StackHawk
StackHawk is a developer-friendly DAST platform (ZAP-powered API + web app dynamic scanning). Securie is an autonomous security engineer with PR-time + deploy-time + sandbox-verified findings and AI-built-app specialists. Different categories; here's the honest read.
People searching 'Securie vs StackHawk' in 2026 are usually one of three audiences. First: dev-led security buyers who liked StackHawk's developer-friendly DAST framing but find ZAP-derived findings noisy. Second: AI-built SaaS teams who shipped on Next.js + Supabase + Vercel and discovered DAST doesn't catch the framework-specific bugs (RLS, leaked anon-key, prompt injection) driving their incidents. Third: teams that want PR-time prevention rather than post-deploy detection. Securie wins for audiences 2 and 3; StackHawk remains a defensible pick for audience 1.
StackHawk runs DAST against deployed apps in CI. Securie catches bugs in code at PR-time, with sandbox-verified exploits + framework-aware auto-fix. DAST + Securie complement; DAST alone misses the AI-built-app bug classes.
Feature comparison
| Securie | StackHawk | |
|---|---|---|
| Test type | Static + LLM-specialist + sandbox-verified dynamic per-finding | DAST (ZAP-powered runtime scan against deployed app) |
| Timing | PR-time (catches before merge) + deploy-time gate | Post-deploy (catches after the bad version ships) |
| Specialist roster | Supabase RLS + BOLA + leaked keys + prompt injection + MCP + slopsquatting + 16 more | ZAP-derived rule packs (XSS, SQLi, headers, etc.) |
| Auto-fix | Framework-aware PR comment with patch | Findings report; no patch |
| False-positive rate | Zero by construction — no exploit, no ticket | ZAP-derived; manual triage required |
| Coverage of vibe-coded bugs | Specialists per Supabase / Next.js / Vercel / MCP / RLS / etc. | Generic HTTP-level coverage; framework-specific bugs missed |
| Pricing | $0-$299/mo across 4 tiers | $35-$90/dev/month list |
Where the difference shows up in practice
Lovable-generated app ships with anon-key reading customer data
StackHawk: Out of scope (DAST sees app, not bundle).
Securie: Secret_scanner detects + Supabase RLS specialist verifies cross-tenant exposure + opens rotation PR.
Cursor-suggested package is hallucinated
StackHawk: Out of scope.
Securie: Slopsquatting heuristic blocks at PR-time + offers canonical alternative.
API endpoint has BOLA on user ID
StackHawk: DAST may catch via cross-tenant probe if the test is configured.
Securie: BOLA specialist catches at PR-time with sandbox-verified cross-tenant exploit + auto-fix.
The deeper tradeoff
StackHawk and Securie both target the developer-led security buyer but solve different timing problems. StackHawk runs DAST against the deployed app — useful for HTTP-level bugs that only manifest at runtime, but blind to bugs in the code that haven't been triggered yet. Securie runs at PR-time — catches bugs in code before merge, with framework-aware specialists that DAST cannot match. The clean architectural read: StackHawk is the post-deploy verification layer; Securie is the pre-deploy prevention layer. For AI-built SaaS specifically, the bug class profile is heavily code-side (RLS, leaked secrets, prompt injection, MCP, supply chain) and DAST misses most of it. For polyglot API portfolios with mature post-deploy testing programs, StackHawk's DAST is a fine addition.
Pricing
Free during early access. $0-$299/mo across four tiers.
$35-$90/dev/month list pricing.
Migration playbook
Step 1: Keep StackHawk for DAST
What: If your polyglot API portfolio benefits from post-deploy DAST.
Why: Different layer than Securie.
Gotchas: Don't expect StackHawk to cover AI-built-app code-side bugs.
Step 2: Install Securie GitHub App
What: Wire on AI-built-app repos for PR-time auto-fix.
Why: Catches bugs StackHawk's HTTP-level view misses.
Gotchas: Free tier 1 repo / 20 scans; Indie $12 for 3 repos / 100 scans.
When to pick StackHawk
You have a polyglot API portfolio that needs explicit post-deploy DAST coverage, your team has cycles to triage ZAP findings, and your bug classes are HTTP-level (XSS, SQLi, headers).
When to pick Securie
You ship AI-built SaaS, you want PR-time prevention with auto-fix, and your bug classes go beyond HTTP-level (RLS, leaked secrets, prompt injection, MCP, supply chain).
Bottom line
Pick StackHawk if you have a polyglot API portfolio that needs explicit DAST coverage post-deploy and your team has cycles to triage ZAP-derived findings. Pick Securie if you want bugs caught + fixed at PR-time on AI-built-app bug classes — RLS, leaked secrets, prompt injection, MCP guard, slopsquatting.
FAQ
Should I run both?
Many teams do — Securie for PR-time prevention on AI-built-app bug classes, StackHawk for post-deploy DAST verification on the API surface.
Why is DAST insufficient for AI-built apps?
DAST sees the app from the outside. RLS misconfig, leaked secret in the bundle, hallucinated package in package.json, prompt injection in an LLM call — none of these are HTTP-level findings. They need code-side specialists.
Pricing comparison?
For a 10-dev team: StackHawk $350-$900/mo list, Securie $12-$299/mo for the same team. Most teams find Securie's coverage is broader on AI-built-app bug classes for less money.
How does sandbox-verified compare to DAST?
Both produce post-finding evidence. DAST shows the HTTP request that exploited the bug. Securie shows the in-sandbox exploit reproduction with full app state. Auditor preference varies; both qualify for most attestation requirements.