Enclave vs XBOW
XBOW is an autonomous pentester for web applications and APIs. Enclave pairs AI pentesting with code and cloud investigation, and its agents write the fix and retest it.
How Enclave and XBOW differ
XBOW is an autonomous offensive security platform. It attacks running web applications and APIs in production or staging, proves every finding with a working exploit, and re-tests once your team deploys a fix.
Enclave is an agentic application security platform. AI pentesting is one part of it: the same agents review pull requests, analyze code and dependencies, investigate cloud configuration, and write each fix as a pull request or infrastructure-as-code change.
If the question is only what an attacker can do to a web application today, the two overlap. Enclave is the broader choice when you also want the cause found in code or cloud and the fix prepared.
Enclave vs XBOW, side by side
Based on each vendor's public documentation, reviewed November 2026. Products change, so details may differ today.
| Dimension | XBOW | Enclave |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Autonomous offensive security: AI pentesting of web applications and APIs | Agentic application security: agents carry each finding from investigation to a verified fix across code, cloud, and live applications |
| Testing live applications | Tests web applications and APIs, authenticated and unauthenticated, in production or staging; every finding has a working exploit | AI pentesting: agents attempt real attack paths as real users and keep the evidence for each one that works |
| Code and cloud | Source code is optional context for a test | Agents review pull requests, analyze code, keep a dependency inventory with OSV advisories (SCA), and investigate AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure configuration |
| Fixes | Developer-ready remediation guidance sent to Jira, GitHub issues, or coding agents | Agents write each fix as a pull request or infrastructure-as-code change, batched by owner; nothing merges without a human |
| Checking the fix | Re-tests once the fix is deployed and confirms the issue is closed | After deploy, agents re-run the original attack path and log the exploit path, the change, and the retest result |
| Pricing | Usage-based, by quote | Public plans from $100 per month; Enterprise is custom |
Which one fits
When XBOW fits
You want a dedicated autonomous pentester for web applications and APIs, with a working exploit behind every finding, and you already have code and cloud security covered.
When Enclave fits
You want pentest findings connected to the code and cloud configuration that caused them, a pull request for each fix, and the same agents covering pull request review, dependencies, and new CVEs.
Using both
Enclave works with the stack you already have. It takes in findings from existing SAST, SCA, CSPM, and vulnerability scanners alongside repository and cloud context, then does the follow-up work: verify, prioritize, fix, and retest.
Enclave vs XBOW FAQ
Is Enclave an alternative to XBOW?
For AI pentesting, yes. Enclave's agents map your application, attempt real attack paths as real users, keep the evidence for each one that works, and replay the path after a fix ships.
What is the main difference between Enclave and XBOW?
XBOW focuses on offensive testing of running web applications and APIs. Enclave covers the full loop across code, cloud, and live applications: investigate, verify, write the fix, and retest.
Does Enclave open pull requests for pentest findings?
Yes. Agents write each fix as a pull request or infrastructure-as-code change and route it to its owner. Nothing merges without a human.
Can Enclave be self-hosted?
Yes. Enclave deploys as SaaS, in your private VPC on AWS, Google Cloud, or Azure, or fully air-gapped, and you can bring your own model API keys.