SecPortal vs Brinqa
delivery workspace vs cyber risk graph
Brinqa is an enterprise cyber risk management platform organised around the Brinqa Cyber Risk Graph: a normalised data model that ingests output from third-party vulnerability scanners (Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz), application security scanners (Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, SonarQube, Burp Suite, GitHub Advanced Security), cloud and container scanners, attack-surface tools, and asset inventory sources (CMDB, EDR, IdP, cloud accounts), correlates findings to assets, applies configurable risk scoring against the merged record, and routes prioritised remediation into ticketing systems. The buyer assumption is that the scanners are already deployed and the team needs a risk graph layer above them. SecPortal is a different shape: scanning, manual finding entry, AI report generation, branded client portal, retesting, and the engagement record live inside one workspace. This page is the side-by-side for buyers comparing a cyber risk graph above a scanner stack to a delivery workspace that scans, reports, and delivers on its own.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.
| Feature | SecPortal | Brinqa |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Security delivery workspace with scanning, findings, reports, and client portal on one tenant | Cyber risk management platform that consolidates output from third-party scanners on a graph data model |
| Engagement model with scope, ROE, and deliverables | Programme model rather than scoped engagement | |
| Client model with onboarding, contacts, and access control | Internal asset owner model | |
| Branded white-label client portal on your subdomain | ||
| Built-in external vulnerability scanning (16 modules) | Imports third-party scanner output (Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7) | |
| Authenticated web application scanning (DAST) | Imports DAST output from third-party scanners | |
| Code scanning (SAST/SCA via Semgrep) | Imports SAST/SCA output from third-party scanners (Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, SonarQube, GHAS) | |
| Subdomain enumeration and external attack surface discovery | Imports attack-surface output from third-party tools | |
| Manual finding entry with full editor | Limited (records originate from connector ingestion) | |
| AI-powered report generation (executive, technical, remediation) | ||
| 300+ finding templates with remediation guidance | Vendor-mapped vulnerability records on the Cyber Risk Graph | |
| CVSS 3.1 vector parsing and auto-scoring | CVSS plus proprietary Brinqa risk scoring | |
| Scanner result import (Nessus, Burp Suite, CSV) | Many vendor connectors plus API ingestion | |
| Encrypted credential vault for authenticated scans (AES-256-GCM) | Relies on third-party scanner credential storage | |
| Retest workflow paired to original finding | Re-scan validates closure through underlying scanner | |
| Compliance framework templates | 21 frameworks | Compliance dashboards mapped to ingested scanner data |
| Integrated invoicing and Stripe Connect payments | ||
| Activity audit trail with CSV export | Platform audit logs | |
| MFA enforcement on every workspace | SSO and IdP-driven controls | |
| Free plan available | ||
| Pricing model | Free, Pro, Team | Sales-led, enterprise licensing weighted by asset count, scanner connectors, and module bundles |
| Setup time | 2 minutes | Connector configuration plus asset inventory onboarding plus risk model calibration |
| Best fit for | Internal AppSec teams, vulnerability management teams, product security teams, security engineering teams, pentest firms, MSSPs, and consultancies that scan, report, and deliver from one workspace | Large enterprises that already operate Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, and Burp in parallel with a CMDB and need a cyber risk graph layer above them |
SecPortal vs Brinqa: delivery workspace vs cyber risk graph
Brinqa is one of the original independent risk-based vulnerability management platforms, sitting in the same enterprise category as Kenna, Nucleus Security, Vulcan Cyber, and Phoenix Security. The platform is organised around the Brinqa Cyber Risk Graph, a normalised data model that ingests output from dozens of third-party vulnerability scanners (Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz), application security scanners (Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, SonarQube, Burp Suite, GitHub Advanced Security), cloud and container scanners, attack-surface tools, and asset inventory sources, correlates findings to assets, applies configurable risk scoring, and routes prioritised remediation downstream into ServiceNow, Jira, or a similar ticketing system. The buyer assumption is that the scanners and the asset inventory are already operating and the bottleneck is consolidating their output into one defensible cyber risk record.
SecPortal is a different category. SecPortal is a security delivery workspace that carries the engagement, the findings, the scanning, the AI report, the branded client portal, and the invoice all on one tenant. The buyer is an internal AppSec team, a vulnerability management team, a product security team, a security engineering team, a penetration testing firm, an MSSP, or a consultancy that ships work to clients or business stakeholders. If you are comparing a cyber risk graph layer above a stack of existing scanner contracts to a delivery workspace that scans, reports, and delivers on its own, this page is the side-by-side. The adjacent comparisons buyers in the RBVM category often evaluate alongside are SecPortal vs Nucleus Security, SecPortal vs Vulcan Cyber, SecPortal vs Kenna Security, and SecPortal vs Phoenix Security.
Where Brinqa stops for delivery and in-house security work
These are not Brinqa-specific criticisms; they are properties of a cyber risk graph layer when you compare it to running scoped engagements or a scanner-plus-findings programme on a single workspace.
Built as a cyber risk graph above existing scanners
Brinqa is an enterprise cyber risk management platform organised around the Brinqa Cyber Risk Graph: a normalised data model that ingests output from third-party vulnerability scanners (Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz), application security scanners (Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, SonarQube, Burp Suite, GitHub Advanced Security), cloud and container scanners, attack-surface tools, and asset inventory sources (CMDB, EDR, IdP, cloud accounts), then correlates findings to assets, runs configurable risk scoring against the merged record, and routes prioritised remediation into ticketing systems. The buyer assumption is that the scanners and the asset inventory are already in place and the bottleneck is consolidating their output into one defensible cyber risk record. SecPortal is the opposite shape: scanning, manual finding entry, AI report generation, branded client portal, and the engagement record live inside one workspace.
No engagement, scope, or deliverable model
Brinqa is organised around the asset graph, the unified finding record, and the risk-scored remediation queue rather than around a scoped engagement with a kickoff, a defined target list, a final report, and a closure date. If the work you ship is a pentest, a vulnerability assessment, a code review, or a compliance audit with a contract scope and a deliverable, Brinqa does not carry that record.
No native scanning of external domains, web apps, or code
Brinqa does not run its own external domain scan, authenticated web scan, or SAST plus SCA code scan. The Cyber Risk Graph depends on the buyer already paying for separate Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, SonarQube, Burp Suite, GitHub Advanced Security, or similar licences to populate the merged finding record. SecPortal includes 16 external domain scan modules, authenticated web scanning, and SAST plus SCA code scanning via Semgrep on its own subscription.
No branded client portal on your subdomain
Brinqa output lives inside the Brinqa console. There is no white-label portal a security firm or an in-house team can hand to an external client or to a stakeholder business unit under their own brand. SecPortal serves a branded client portal on the tenant subdomain so every finding, retest, remediation thread, and report download lives under your name rather than the vendor name.
No AI-generated executive summaries, technical writeups, or remediation narratives
Brinqa produces dashboards, risk-scored prioritisation views, and remediation campaigns from ingested scanner and asset data, but it does not draft executive summaries, technical pentest writeups, or narrative remediation roadmaps. SecPortal uses Claude to draft executive, technical, and remediation deliverables from the live findings record so the deliverable goes out without separate writeup time.
Sales-led procurement and enterprise licensing
Brinqa pricing is sales-led with enterprise licensing weighted by asset count, scanner connectors, and module bundles. There is no published price list, no free tier, and no self-service path from sign-up to a real engagement. The buyer enters a procurement cycle that includes a demo, an asset audit, a scoping call, and an annual commitment before the platform produces value. SecPortal pricing is published on the website with a free plan, monthly Pro and Team tiers, and no annual contract floor.
How prioritisation actually shows up on the operator queue
Risk-based vulnerability management is a useful framing, but the buyer should be clear-eyed about what a proprietary aggregate score gives you and what it costs. The contrast below is between a configurable Brinqa risk score and a documented combination of public signals plus engagement context recorded on the same workspace the operators run on.
Brinqa risk scoring is a proprietary aggregate
Brinqa ranks each unified finding through a configurable risk score that combines CVSS, threat intelligence signals (exploit availability, exploitation observation), asset criticality, business context, and configurable rules. The score is tunable, but the underlying weighting still produces a single composite number on the queue. If a security leader is asked by an auditor or an asset owner to defend why a specific finding sits at a specific tier, the answer involves walking the configured rule set rather than pointing to a documented combination of severity, exploitability, asset tier, and compensating controls on the engagement record.
SecPortal captures CVSS plus EPSS plus KEV plus context on the engagement record
SecPortal records CVSS 3.1 with environmental and temporal calibration, the persistent finding identifier, the asset tier and exposure annotation from the engagement scope, and the verification state from retesting. Public industry signals (EPSS, the CISA KEV catalog, threat intelligence) are documented per finding rather than collapsed into one opaque composite. The prioritisation argument is auditable: the operator can show severity, evidence, exploitation observation, predicted likelihood, and compensating controls on the same record.
The score lives where the work happens
In SecPortal the prioritisation record is the same record the operator works on, the auditor reviews, and the leadership view regenerates from. In a Brinqa deployment the risk score lives in the Cyber Risk Graph, the work happens in the underlying scanner consoles or downstream in Jira, ServiceNow, or a remediation campaign tool, and the audit trail is split across at least two systems. Reconciling them is part of the recurring operating cost of a risk-graph architecture.
Who each platform is the right fit for
Brinqa and SecPortal solve different problems for different buyers. The honest answer is that the right tool depends on whether you are unifying existing scanner contracts under a risk graph or running scoped engagements and findings on one workspace.
Brinqa fits large enterprises that have already standardised the scanner stack
If you are a large internal security team running Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7, Wiz, Snyk, Veracode, Checkmarx, Black Duck, and Burp in parallel and the bottleneck is correlating their output into one risk-scored remediation queue piped into ServiceNow, Jira, or a remediation campaign tool, Brinqa was built for that consolidation shape. The buyer assumption is multiple existing scanner contracts plus an asset inventory feeding in from elsewhere plus the budget for a cyber risk graph layer above them.
SecPortal fits teams who want scanning, findings, reports, and delivery on one workspace
If you are a penetration testing firm, an MSSP, a consultancy, an AppSec team, a vulnerability management team, or an in-house security function that wants the scanner, the finding record, the AI report, the branded portal, and the invoice all on one tenant, SecPortal carries that lifecycle without forcing you to license six other tools first. The engagement model is built around scoped delivery: a kickoff, an in-scope target list, an evidence trail, a final report, a closure date, and a retest workflow.
SecPortal fits buyers who want findings to live somewhere they own
If you want every finding, retest, remediation thread, and report to live in a workspace under your brand rather than scattered across vendor consoles, a risk graph dashboard, and a ticketing queue, SecPortal is the workspace that holds that record across vendors and across years. Findings can still be imported from Nessus, Burp Suite, or generic CSV when scanners outside SecPortal are part of the picture.
Transparent pricing, no procurement cycle
SecPortal pricing is published on the website and self-service from sign-up. There is no annual contract floor, no per-asset licensing model, and no enterprise sales call required before you can run a real engagement.
SecPortal Free
Free forever
1 user, 3 clients, 2 engagements per client, 3 AI credits, 6 core scan modules.
SecPortal Pro
From $149/month
All scan modules, 100 clients, 25 AI credits/month, branded client portal, invoicing, compliance tracking.
SecPortal Team
From $299/month
Up to 5 users, 75 AI credits/month, team management, activity audit trail with CSV export, MFA enforcement.
Why teams pick SecPortal over Brinqa
- Run scoped engagements with a kickoff, deliverables, retests, and a final invoice on one record instead of an open-ended consolidation programme above six scanners
- Scan internally with 16 external modules, authenticated web scanning, and SAST plus SCA code scanning rather than aggregating output from existing scanner contracts
- Generate executive, technical, and remediation deliverables with Claude from the live findings record
- Deliver findings through a branded client portal on your tenant subdomain instead of through a vendor console or scheduled report email
- Pair every retest to the original finding so the closure record holds up under audit
- Document CVSS, EPSS, KEV, asset tier, and exposure on the engagement record so prioritisation is defensible to a board, an auditor, or an asset owner
- Map findings across 21 framework templates including OWASP, ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, FedRAMP, MITRE ATT&CK, DORA, NIS2, CIS Controls, and Essential Eight
- Store privileged scan credentials encrypted at rest with AES-256-GCM and rotate them through the in-product credential vault
- Invoice clients or business units directly from the engagement record through Stripe Connect
- Start on the free plan and upgrade without procurement, an asset-count audit, or an enterprise sales call
Related reading
If you are evaluating how to run an in-house vulnerability management programme or a delivery operation rather than pay for a risk graph layer above existing scanner contracts, the pages below cover the workflows, signals, and adjacent comparisons that come up most often.
- Risk-based vulnerability management buyer guide for the category-level evaluation guide that covers signal inputs, the four product shapes, RFP-ready criteria, and when RBVM fits.
- Vulnerability prioritisation for the operational workflow that captures CVSS, EPSS, KEV, asset tier, and exposure into a defensible queue.
- Security tool consolidation for the workflow that shrinks vendor sprawl into one defensible findings record.
- Vulnerability backlog management for the workflow that keeps the merged remediation queue defensible to leadership.
- CISA KEV catalog guide for the operational walkthrough of the strongest exploitation signal a VM programme reads.
- EPSS score explained for the public exploit-likelihood signal that complements CVSS severity.
- Vulnerability prioritisation framework for the signal-weighting theory behind a defensible queue.
- Remediation tracking from open finding to verified close in the client portal.
- Vulnerability SLA management to set, track, and enforce remediation SLAs by severity and asset tier.
- Security tool coverage overlap research for the scanner-stack coverage map that a consolidator does not change.
- Vulnerability remediation throughput research for the cycle-time stages a programme should report alongside a risk score.
- Findings management with CVSS 3.1 vector parsing, severity calibration, and 300+ finding templates.
- External scanning with 16 modules covering SSL, headers, ports, subdomains, and cloud exposure.
- SecPortal vs Nucleus Security for the consolidator-layer alternative buyers in the RBVM category often evaluate alongside.
- SecPortal vs Vulcan Cyber for the cyber risk management platform now folded into the Tenable One bundle.
- SecPortal vs Kenna Security for the original RBVM analytics layer (now Cisco Vulnerability Management) inside the same buyer evaluation.
- SecPortal vs Phoenix Security for the contextual prioritisation alternative aimed at AppSec programmes.
- SecPortal for vulnerability management teams for the in-house find-track-fix-verify audience overview.
- SecPortal for internal security teams for the broader enterprise security operations audience overview.
Scanning, findings, AI reports, and delivery on one workspace
Run scoped engagements, prioritise findings against CVSS plus EPSS plus KEV, and ship results through a branded portal. No risk graph layer above six other scanner contracts. Start free.
No credit card required. Free plan available forever.