[Compare]
Continuous vs annual pentest
A traditional pentest is a point-in-time snapshot: weeks to scope, five figures, and a PDF that is stale the day it arrives. You ship every day and test once a year. Continuous, autonomous pentesting closes that gap — verify an asset once, then watch it continuously and prove what is exploitable on demand.
| Panoptes | Annual pentest | |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence | Continuous, with on-demand runs | Once a year |
| Time to first result | Minutes after you connect | Weeks to scope and schedule |
| Entry cost | Free Code scan, then a $500 run | Typically five figures |
| Output | A living feed with stored evidence | A static PDF |
| Coverage between tests | Continuous scanning across code, cloud and surface | None until the next engagement |
| Fix verification | Re-test after a fix (30 days) | Next year |
The gap is where breaches happen
Most of the year, nothing is watching the code, cloud and images you change between tests. Continuous scanning runs with every release, and an autonomous pentest runs when you need proof — so a new exposure is caught in days, not at the next annual window.
You still get the deep, human-gated engagement
Continuous does not mean shallow. Live exploitation is human-gated and scope-bound, and larger engagements come with an audit-ready report and an executive readout. The difference is that the proof is continuous and the evidence is kept, not a snapshot you file away and forget.
Annual-pentest cost and cadence reflect common industry benchmarks; your mileage varies by scope and provider. Panoptes figures are our list prices, subject to change.