SecPortal vs StackHawk
developer-first CI pipeline DAST vs security testing workspace

SecPortal vs StackHawk: developer-first CI pipeline DAST vs security testing workspace

StackHawk is a developer-first automated DAST platform that runs HawkScan (its dynamic scanner) inside the CI pipeline. The scan is driven by an OpenAPI, Postman, GraphQL, or HAR specification so each REST, GraphQL, SOAP, or gRPC endpoint enumerated by the spec gets tested on every pipeline run. The pipeline triggers the scan against the deployed application or the ephemeral preview environment, HawkScan publishes the result back to the StackHawk platform and the pull request that opened the change, and the developer that wrote the code receives the signal alongside the rest of the pull-request review. The buyer is an AppSec leader, a product security leader, or an engineering leader at a team with a real CI pipeline (GitHub Actions, GitLab, Jenkins, CircleCI, BitBucket Pipelines, or Azure DevOps) who wants every pull request and every release branch to ship DAST findings back to the developer that opened the change.

SecPortal is a different shape. SecPortal is the security testing and delivery workspace for AppSec teams, internal security teams, vulnerability management teams, product security teams, pentest firms, MSSPs, and consultancies that run scoped engagements and ship findings to application owners, business stakeholders, or external clients. The engagement, the scoping, the SAST and dependency analysis output from connected repositories, the authenticated DAST and external perimeter scans, the manual findings, the AI-generated report, the branded client portal, the retest, and the invoice all sit inside one workspace. If the question is whether to ship pull-request-shaped DAST findings back into the developer loop or to deliver scoped assessments and findings as a recurring deliverable on a scoped engagement record, this page is the side-by-side. The adjacent comparisons buyers in the running-application DAST category often evaluate alongside are SecPortal vs Invicti, SecPortal vs Acunetix, SecPortal vs Burp Suite, SecPortal vs Detectify, and SecPortal vs Intruder.

Where the developer-first CI pipeline DAST model stops for delivery work

These are not StackHawk-specific criticisms; they are properties of a spec-driven CI-pipeline-native DAST product when the buyer compares it to running scoped engagements on a delivery workspace.

What SecPortal adds to the picture

Who each platform is the right fit for

StackHawk and SecPortal solve adjacent problems for different buyer shapes. The honest framing is that the right tool depends on whether the primary motion is shipping pull-request-shaped DAST findings back into the developer loop or shipping engagement deliverables that combine source, authenticated DAST, external coverage, and manual findings on a scoped engagement record.

How the StackHawk pipeline DAST loop compares to the SecPortal engagement record

StackHawk and SecPortal both produce evidence an auditor, a buyer, or an application owner reads, but the asset of record is different. The StackHawk pipeline run is the canonical view of the spec-driven DAST signal published back into the pull request that opened the change. The SecPortal engagement record is the canonical view of the scoped security work that produced a deliverable. The contrast matters when the audit-side reader asks for the underlying technical security testing evidence behind a control or a deliverable, not just the pipeline-side DAST signal.

Spec-driven API DAST versus authenticated session DAST: two operating models

StackHawk markets spec-driven API enumeration as the canonical lane, with the OpenAPI, Postman, GraphQL, or HAR specification as the source of truth for the test surface. SecPortal organises authenticated web DAST around stored credentials on a verified domain, with the session as the source of truth for the test surface. The two models read different surfaces and produce different evidence shapes.

How StackHawk sits relative to Invicti, Acunetix, Burp Suite, and ZAP

Buyers comparing running-application DAST platforms typically shortlist StackHawk alongside Invicti, Acunetix, Burp Suite, and ZAP and weigh CI pipeline integration, proof-based exploit verification, crawler depth against the OWASP Top 10, manual interactive testing fit, and open-source roots against the team shape and the buyer signal. The contrast below explains how StackHawk sits relative to those adjacent platforms.

How SecPortal authenticated DAST compares to StackHawk in-pipeline DAST

StackHawk covers the running-application surface with depth on the spec-driven API lane: HawkScan reads the OpenAPI, Postman, GraphQL, or HAR spec, enumerates the endpoint list, tests each endpoint against the HawkScan rule set, runs inside the CI pipeline, and publishes the result back into the pull request. SecPortal covers the running-application surface as one of three lanes that converge on a single engagement record, rather than as the centrepiece of a pipeline-driven product.

The authenticated scanning feature runs 17 modules behind stored credentials through cookie, bearer, basic, or form authentication on verified domains. The external scanning feature runs 16 modules across SSL, headers, DNS, ports, subdomains, technology fingerprinting, and CVE correlation so the perimeter is scanned alongside the authenticated application surface. The code scanning feature runs SAST and dependency analysis through Semgrep on repositories connected via GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket OAuth so source-side findings land on the same engagement record. The continuous monitoring feature runs daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly scans on a schedule and writes the results back to the same engagement record rather than depending on a CI pipeline trigger to drive cadence.

How credentials, repository access, and import paths are handled

Authenticated scanning needs credentials that live somewhere durable. SecPortal stores them in an encrypted credential vault with AES-256-GCM, scoped to a verified domain. Every external scan is gated on domain verification through DNS TXT or meta tag so authorisation is provable before any module fires. Source-side scanning needs read access to a repository. SecPortal connects to GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket through OAuth so scope is bound to the connected organisation and the repositories the team selects, rather than through a shared service account or a long-lived deploy key. Teams that operate StackHawk for the in-pipeline DAST loop can still consolidate scanner output onto the engagement record through the importing third-party scanner results guide for the verified Nessus, Burp Suite, and CSV import paths.

From scan to deliverable

The output of an API DAST, web DAST, SAST, or SCA run is the beginning of a deliverable, not the end. SecPortal turns scan results into draft findings, the analyst triages and validates them, the findings management layer holds the consolidated record with CVSS vectors, evidence, and remediation, and the AI reports feature generates the executive and technical narrative the recipient receives. The branded client portal is where the deliverable lands; the scanner result triage workflow covers how raw scanner output becomes a calibrated finding before it is promoted onto the canonical record.

For AppSec teams running API security testing on the engagement record, the API security testing workflow covers how REST, GraphQL, and SOAP coverage lands on the engagement record next to the SAST, SCA, and external scan output. For internal security teams that already run StackHawk in the CI pipeline and want to operationalise the output into engagement records and remediation tracking, the scanner-to-ticket handoff governance workflow and the remediation tracking workflow cover how pipeline-side findings move from detection to closure with named owners, SLA tiers, and an audit trail. For teams running scoped engagements against named applications, the security onboarding for new applications workflow covers how a new application enters the security programme with named scope, named owner, and named cadence. The compliance crosswalk for AppSec evidence is covered in the control mapping workflow so the same engagement evidence answers OWASP ASVS V14, OWASP API Security Top 10, ISO 27001 A.8.28, SOC 2 CC8.1, PCI DSS Requirement 6, NIST SSDF PW.4, and NIST 800-53 SA-11 simultaneously.

Transparent pricing, no procurement cycle

SecPortal pricing is published on the website and self-service from sign-up. There is no per-application licensing model, no annual contract floor on the Pro or Team tiers, and no sales call required before you can run a real engagement.

Why AppSec, internal security, and consultancy teams pick SecPortal alongside or instead of StackHawk

Honest scope: what SecPortal does not aim to be

SecPortal is not a CI-pipeline-native DAST scanner, does not ship a HawkScan equivalent containerised binary that runs inside a GitHub Actions, GitLab, Jenkins, CircleCI, BitBucket Pipelines, or Azure DevOps pipeline job, does not read an OpenAPI, Postman, GraphQL, or HAR specification to drive API endpoint enumeration, does not publish scan results back into the pull request as a comment integration, does not fail the build on new findings above a severity threshold, does not run a local developer CLI scanner that the developer invokes against their branch before merging, and does not ship packaged Jira, ServiceNow, Slack, SIEM, SOAR, or CMDB connectors. The honest framing is that SecPortal is a security testing and delivery workspace that complements a StackHawk pipeline DAST deployment rather than a CI-pipeline-native DAST scanner that replaces one.

Related reading

If you are evaluating how to run scoped AppSec, pentest, and vulnerability management engagements alongside or instead of a developer-first CI pipeline DAST product, the pages below cover the workflows, adjacent comparisons, and audience views that come up most often.

• SecPortal vs Invicti for the enterprise DAST console comparison with proof-based scanning.
• SecPortal vs Acunetix for the crawler-and-vulnerability-class-catalogue DAST comparison.
• SecPortal vs Burp Suite for the interactive manual security testing comparison.
• SecPortal vs Detectify for the automated web scanning service with researcher-fuelled signatures comparison.
• SecPortal vs Intruder for the managed external scanning service comparison.
• SecPortal vs Snyk for the developer-first SCA and SAST comparison with reachability prioritisation.
• SecPortal vs Semgrep for the open-source SAST engine comparison (Semgrep powers SecPortal SAST).
• SecPortal vs GitHub Advanced Security for the GitHub-native code security and secret scanning comparison.
• SecPortal for AppSec teams for the audience page covering authenticated DAST, SAST, SCA, manual pentest entry, and AI-generated reporting on one workspace.
• SecPortal for product security teams for the product security view of running scoped reviews against named applications with SAST, SCA, DAST, and external coverage on the same engagement record.
• SecPortal for DevSecOps teams for the DevSecOps view of paired source-side and running-application coverage on one engagement record.
• API security testing workflow for the workflow that turns REST, GraphQL, and SOAP API coverage into engagement-shaped findings.
• DevSecOps scanning workflow for the operating model that pairs SAST, SCA, DAST, and external coverage inside one engagement record.
• API security testing checklist for the practical operating checklist for running API security tests against authenticated and unauthenticated endpoints.
• Dynamic application security testing explained for the deep technical breakdown of DAST as a category, its scanner types, and where each fits the AppSec programme.
• OWASP API Security Top 10 for the framework API security testing most often maps findings against.