Pick the vendors you are looking at and start scoring. The questions and weights below are this category’s staff-reviewed standard, applied for you — there is nothing to set up. Everything works without an account, and nothing leaves your browser until you ask it to.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
All 42 vendors in this category.
Strong answers cover shadow/zombie and internal APIs, name the discovery sources (live traffic, gateways, code, cloud), and confirm continuous (not point-in-time) inventory.
Sources: salt.security · traceable.ai · akto.io
Look for spec/contract conformance checks, auth/authz posture analysis, and detection of sensitive data (PII/secrets) flowing through APIs — not just a vulnerability scan.
Sources: 42crunch.com · wallarm.com · cequence.ai
Evidence-backed answers map to the OWASP API Top 10 (especially BOLA), describe business-logic abuse detection, give false-positive/accuracy figures, and cite customer outcomes.
Sources: salt.security · traceable.ai · wallarm.com
Strong answers include shift-left testing (spec scan, DAST/fuzzing), CI/CD integration, and developer-friendly remediation guidance, distinguishing testing from runtime protection.
Sources: 42crunch.com · escape.tech · akto.io
Look for a clear statement of inline vs out-of-band architecture, latency/scale impact, and whether traffic/data (vs metadata) leaves the boundary — a common deployment constraint.
Sources: wallarm.com · salt.security · cequence.ai
Distinguish native inline prevention/WAAP from detection that hands off to a gateway/WAF or ticketing; look for rate-limiting and automated response.
Sources: wallarm.com · akamai.com · cequence.ai
Look for protection of LLM/AI API endpoints and AI-agent/MCP traffic, with honest scope given how new this is. Treat broad 'AI-ready' claims skeptically without specifics.
Sources: akto.io · wallarm.com · traceable.ai
Prefer broad, GA (not roadmap) integrations with API gateways/CDNs/CI tools, plus real false-positive/accuracy numbers backed by customer references over vendor benchmarks.
Sources: salt.security · 42crunch.com · akamai.com
Same tension as other discovery-driven categories: successful shadow-API discovery inherently increases the counted endpoint population — ask explicitly how pricing handles a large post-onboarding jump.
API risk isn't just about what you expose — a vendor addressing consumed third-party API risk (a real and often-overlooked attack surface) shows more complete scope than one focused solely on inbound/exposed APIs.
Native compliance-evidence generation is materially more valuable than raw findings requiring manual compilation for every audit cycle.
Strong answers describe a fast, specific forensic reconstruction capability with a real turnaround-time figure — this is the highest-stakes use case (a confirmed breach), not just preventive monitoring.
Mobile-app backend APIs have distinct traffic and authentication patterns from browser-facing APIs — a vendor should clarify this scope explicitly rather than implying uniform coverage.
Ask for an honest per-environment coverage breakdown; uneven coverage across cloud providers is a common real gap a vendor should disclose rather than obscure.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time technical dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Strong answers give a concrete, customer-validated timeline for a realistic worst-case scenario (large undocumented API sprawl), not just a greenfield/small-footprint example.
These questions and weights are the reviewed standard for this category — start scoring straight away. To change them, or to import your own questions from a spreadsheet and reuse them on every evaluation, create a free buyer account.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Neutral strengths and gaps for each vendor in this category, drawn from vendors' own public materials — included so the questions below favor no single vendor. Gaps reflect capabilities not emphasized in public materials, not rankings.
| Vendor | Strengths | Gaps / watch-outs |
|---|---|---|
| 42Crunch AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Developer-first API security: OpenAPI audit/conformance scanning and contract-anchored runtime protection (shift-left). | Spec/contract-centric; broad runtime behavioral threat detection is less central than posture and testing. |
| Akamai AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | API security delivered on a global edge/CDN with integrated WAAP and large-scale traffic protection. | Edge-platform context; deep API behavioral discovery/posture is one part of a broad portfolio. |
| Akto AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | API discovery and automated security testing (including agentic AI/MCP), developer-friendly and fast to deploy. | Newer entrant; very-large-enterprise runtime-protection depth is still expanding versus incumbents. |
| Cequence Security AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | API protection at scale with bot/abuse defense and native inline mitigation across discovery, detection, and prevention. | Bot/abuse-defense heritage; shift-left testing breadth is less central than runtime. |
| Escape AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Business-logic-aware DAST and attack-surface discovery from code to cloud, with AI-driven remediation. | Testing/DAST and ASM focus; inline runtime protection is less central. |
| Salt Security AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | API discovery plus runtime threat detection with behavioral/ML context across the full API lifecycle, and strong BOLA/abuse detection. | Detection-and-discovery heritage; inline prevention/WAAP enforcement is less central than out-of-band detection. |
| Traceable AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | API security across discovery, posture, threat detection, and protection with distributed-tracing context and a data-exposure focus. | Broad platform; depth varies by module, and tracing-based context can require instrumentation. |
| Wallarm AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Inline API security and WAAP that blocks OWASP threats across protocols, plus API testing and AI-workload protection. | Inline/WAAP enforcement heritage; deep behavioral discovery and posture are less central than protection. |