Compare Cobalt and vPenTest 
- Users report that Cobalt excels in its Test Agent Deployment feature, scoring 8.9, which allows for seamless integration into existing workflows, while vPenTest's score of 7.7 indicates room for improvement in this area.
- Reviewers mention that Cobalt's Breach Simulation functionality is highly rated at 9.3, providing realistic scenarios for testing, whereas vPenTest, with a score of 9.1, offers solid capabilities but lacks some of the depth found in Cobalt's simulations.
- G2 users highlight Cobalt's superior Reporting and Analytics at 9.3, which offers comprehensive insights into testing results, while vPenTest's score of 9.1 suggests it provides good analytics but may not be as detailed or user-friendly.
- Users on G2 report that Cobalt's Automated Testing feature shines with a score of 9.6, making it a preferred choice for teams looking to streamline their testing processes, compared to vPenTest's score of 8.7, which indicates a less robust automation capability.
- Reviewers mention that Cobalt's Multi-Vector Assessment feature is rated at 9.2, allowing for diverse attack simulations, while vPenTest's lower score of 8.9 suggests it may not cover as many attack vectors effectively.
- Users say that Cobalt's Ease of Setup is rated at 9.0, making it user-friendly for new adopters, while vPenTest's score of 9.3 indicates it is slightly easier to set up, but the difference may not be significant for most users.
- Targeted 24 hour (3 credit) pentest focused on key vulnerabilities like SQLi, CSRF, or XSS; or general coverage of a web application including 10 pages with 3-user roles
- Post-test findings guide including recommendation for fixing issues
- Access to DAST for 12 months for 1 target URL with unlimited scanning
We engaged Cobalt to perform a penetration test on a small application, including some API testing. Our experience was very positive. Their team was professional and conducted thorough manual security testing tailored to our specific business use case. They...
The so-called PEN-Testers have no qualifications for what they are doing. They are not motivated and the supervisors seem to be part of the problem. They didn't find anything.
Have been using for some time. Very impressed with the automated penetration testing. Came from using a vulnerability scanner but hard to demonstrate to customers why a vulnerability is bad until you can use it and show your results. Reporting is very...
Some of the most important findings like a password of "Spring2020" are buried in the narrative instead of presented with the vulnerabilities. The scanner doesn't seem particularly advanced or in-depth. If your organization keeps a good inventory and...
We engaged Cobalt to perform a penetration test on a small application, including some API testing. Our experience was very positive. Their team was professional and conducted thorough manual security testing tailored to our specific business use case. They...
Have been using for some time. Very impressed with the automated penetration testing. Came from using a vulnerability scanner but hard to demonstrate to customers why a vulnerability is bad until you can use it and show your results. Reporting is very...
The so-called PEN-Testers have no qualifications for what they are doing. They are not motivated and the supervisors seem to be part of the problem. They didn't find anything.
Some of the most important findings like a password of "Spring2020" are buried in the narrative instead of presented with the vulnerabilities. The scanner doesn't seem particularly advanced or in-depth. If your organization keeps a good inventory and...
