English is the new pentesting language.
Give a URL. Click Scan. Get the report.
See It Working — In the Product
Real screens from the live product. Give a URL, click Scan, get the report.
What a traditional India pentest actually costs — versus what Vyntryx actually costs.
- Genuine manual web-app VAPT (senior tester, grey-box), single scope: ₹40,000 – ₹2,00,000 typical (RingSafe 2026 guidance: "₹1–2.5 lakh for a single-scope, senior-tester, manual engagement; ₹5–10 lakh for multi-asset").
- Complex, enterprise, or compliance-grade engagements: ₹1,50,000 – ₹4,00,000+, up to ₹8,00,000–₹10,00,000 in the most complex cases.
- Caveat: quotes under ~₹25,000 for a "full pentest" are almost always an automated-scan export rebranded as a pentest, not genuine manual testing.
- Active testing time: 5–15 business days (simple apps ~3–5 days; complex enterprise SaaS 2–6 weeks).
- Full lifecycle — scoping → testing → report delivery: 4–8 weeks end-to-end; report delivery alone takes 3–7 business days after testing concludes.
Sourced Aug 2026 from Astra, BlazeInfoSec, TCSA, RingSafe, BM Infotrade, Cybersecify, Fortbridge, Triaxiom, and FireCompass industry pricing guides.
- Full autonomous scan (URL → report): mean 5.52M tokens = $17.87 = ₹1,703 real measured LLM engine cost (median ₹843; max observed ₹11,373 for a 4-host scan) — from 23 full-scan sessions within a 52-session production corpus, not an estimate.
- Under Vyntryx's own VT pricing (₹1.00/VT list price): list-equivalent price per scan is ≈₹5,500–₹6,000.
- Same-day, evidence-backed report — hours, not weeks.
Roughly 7×–115× less than a single traditional India engagement.
The Full Vyntryx Flow
- A brute-force attempt
- Building a payload
- An extra OSINT pass
- An auth-bypass chain
- Whatever else the pentest still needs
- Share Portal
- Security Overview
Every Swarm Agent Gets Full Powers. None of Them Gets Left Stuck in a Loop.
- Full copy, not a crippled subagent. Same intelligence, knowledge base, internet, powers.
- Spawned from evidence, not a checklist. One agent per finding — target type, versions, ports.
- Watched, not just spawned. An agent stuck repeating a task is interrupted and redirected.
- Not deep enough? It grows again. A fresh wave: brute-force, one port, one service's CVEs.
Each satellite is one live swarm agent at full capability. Ant-colony pheromone coordination — spawn, work, re-steer (cyan), loop (amber), redirect (red).
Dynamic is not unsupervised. Scope is checked before every sub-task; a trail leading outside the agreed target stops and asks a human — no exceptions. Every spawn, steer, loop-interrupt, redirect and termination is logged and visible to you in the Assets and Debug tabs.
No CVE. No public payload. No precedent. Vyntryx never finds out on your system first.
Every so often an agent hits a wall with nothing to reach for — no CVE, no documented exploit, no public payload someone else wrote. Vyntryx rebuilds the target somewhere else first, and nothing reaches the real system until that copy proves the payload safe.
- 01 · No Match Found. An agent hits a vulnerability or service with no public information anywhere it has looked — no CVE, no known payload, no write-up. Flagged as a possible zero-day: flagged, not assumed.
- 02 · Rebuild the Target, Not the Attack. A sandbox matching that service’s exact version stack — same software, same configuration — fully isolated from the live target.
- 03 · Test the Payload There, First. A candidate payload is built and run against the copy, watched for what would matter: a crashed service, a wiped database. Never once against the live target.
- 04 · Execute Only If the Sandbox Says It’s Safe. A clean run earns exactly one execution against the real target, purely to confirm the finding. Anything that goes wrong sends Vyntryx back to refine and re-test.
Possible zero-day flagged — no CVE, no known payload
The same sandbox-and-replica discipline Vyntryx Mode's Round Two runs inside for its full 2–3 day, ~9–10M-token engagement — the default behavior behind every engagement, in every mode, not a premium add-on layered on top.
One walkthrough. Five stops, in order.
The Hook
See it working first: real product screens, the real India numbers, the full Vyntryx flow, Swarm Intelligence and zero-day sandbox safety.
Why It Matters
A record cost per breach, a pentest bottleneck, and a tracking process pentesters themselves call confusing.
The Product
The platform, the recon-first methodology, a live demo, target coverage, findings and the Share Portal, the security overview, what’s live today, and Sentinel.
Trust
Guardrails in depth, and exactly what changes (and never changes) in Vyntryx Mode’s Round Two.
The Business
Who it’s for, how it deploys, who else is building this, what’s next on the roadmap, and a live product you’re welcome to point at a real URL today.
Five stops, a quick walkthrough — live product included, questions welcome any time.
A breach in India now costs a record ₹25.5 crore. Pentesting is the single biggest lever that brings it down.
IBM prices the damage every year, and in India the line only moves one way. But the same research names the fix: organizations that already run penetration testing and red-teaming absorb the smallest hit of anyone in the report.
Average cost per breach — India, 2021–2026
▲ 15.9% YoY · record highIBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, India — average cost per breach to an organization. 2022 not published by IBM; years shown are the ones IBM reported.
2026 breakdown by sector (India)
The three highest-cost sectors in IBM's 2026 India breakdown — each well above the ₹25.5cr national average.
Global and US figures are IBM's 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report — a different report year and currency from the India figures above; shown for context, not summed with them.
Average reduction in breach cost for organizations already running penetration testing and red-teaming — the single biggest cost-saving factor IBM identified in its 2026 India report.
IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, India, 2026.
Estimated annual loss to India from online cybercrime and fraud — a broader, economy-wide figure, distinct from IBM's per-breach enterprise average above.
Cybersecurity-industry estimate reported by Deccan Herald, "India loses Rs 70k crore to cybercrime annually" (Dec 2025) — broader than the Ministry of Home Affairs' officially reported cyber-fraud losses (₹22,000cr+, 2025); a different, broader measure from the IBM per-breach figures above, not additive with either.
- Bank of Baroda (India) — an estimated 700GB–1TB of internal/customer data was leaked via a dark-web listing (disclosed late July 2026); the bank confirmed a single compromised employee email account (weak password) was the root cause. Core banking systems were not affected. — The Asian Banker
- Trezor / ShipMonk — roughly 13,700 customers exposed (disclosed August 13, 2026) after a SQL-injection zero-day in a third-party analytics platform (Metabase) compromised a shipping partner's systems, exposing names, emails, phone numbers, and addresses. The same campaign also hit laptop maker Framework and form-builder Tally. — BleepingComputer
- Industry trend — 1,803 reported data compromises in the US alone in H1 2026 (up from 1,732 the year before), 471 million+ victim notices, and roughly 1-in-4 breaches now AI-enabled — up 56% year over year. — CNBC, Aug 14 2026
If pentesting is the fix, why doesn't everyone just do it more? Because the traditional version is its own problem.
Sourced Aug 2026 from Astra, BlazeInfoSec, TCSA, RingSafe, BM Infotrade, Cybersecify, Fortbridge, Triaxiom, and FireCompass industry pricing guides — the same sourcing basis this deck's earlier India Reality Check comparison uses.
Finding the vulnerability was never the hard part.
Knowing whether it's still there is.
A pentest ends when every finding is confirmed fixed — and that confirmation is exactly what gets lost across five channels with no single source of truth.
“Is the vulnerability fixed? Is it a recurrence point? Very confusing process.”
— how the problem was described in the original product walkthroughExcel Sheets
The master finding list lives in a spreadsheet — until someone renames a tab, deletes a row, or forwards an older copy that quietly becomes the version everyone trusts.
Documents
Screenshots pasted in, severity re-argued in a meeting, exported as a PDF and circulated — every recipient now holds a slightly different draft.
Video Walkthroughs
A screen-recording proves the exploit once, gets watched once, and is buried in a shared drive with no link back to the finding it belongs to.
Email Chains
The finding, the fix, and the retest scatter across weeks of reply-all threads, with no reliable way to tell which message is the latest word.
Teams Follow-Ups
A quick “is this patched yet?” message scrolls out of the channel within a day — unlinked to the finding it was actually asking about.
Five channels, one finding, zero certainty. By the time a fix ships, nobody — not the pentester, not the developer, not the client — can answer with confidence the two questions that actually matter:
- Is this vulnerability actually fixed?
- Or is it a recurrence — the same hole, back again under a different name?
What is Vyntryx?
Vyntryx is an autonomous, browser-based AI pentesting platform. Give it a target and a fleet of 45+ specialist AI agents plans the engagement, carries out the attack, and validates every finding on its own — no CLI tools to learn, no payloads to hand-write, no scripts to maintain. You get back an evidence-backed report, not a pile of scanner output.
A traditional pentest is a long manual relay race — the same eleven handoffs, in the same order, whether the engagement runs two weeks or two months. Vyntryx runs the middle of that chain end-to-end, and pulls the tail of it into one platform.
- Stays humanScope and authorisation are agreed by people, not a model.
- Vyntryx automates end-to-endRecon through Report run themselves, unattended.
- Now inside the same platformFix, Retest and Close on one thread — not emails and spreadsheets.
Scope stays human — Recon through Report now run themselves, and Fix, Retest, and Close happen inside the same platform, not a chain of emails and spreadsheets.
All of this now runs from a browser.
Recon-first — Script and Aggregate map your target before the LLM ever gets a vote.
Two deterministic phases build a complete footprint with zero reasoning calls; the LLM only switches on once that footprint exists. Click any phase to see exactly what it does.
Click any phase to see what it does — the diagram stays on screen. Click it again to close; arrow keys move between phases, Esc closes.
The same target, scanned twice, returns the same footprint twice. Inference is reserved for the two phases that actually earn its cost — deciding what’s next, and attacking.
Script — Deterministic Recon
01 · Phase · No LLMRecon looks the same on almost every target, so it runs as scripted, deterministic tooling instead of a prompt: technology stack, open ports, exposed services, and endpoint fingerprints, walked the same way every time. No inference spend, and no risk of a model hallucinating a port or a service version that isn’t there.
Hands on A raw, repeatable target footprint — stack, ports, services, endpoint fingerprints.
Aggregate — Structure, Not Reasoning
02 · Phase · No LLMEverything Script collected gets organized into structured directories — open ports, directory linkages, discovered user info — then digested into knowledge graphs and vector embeddings, chunked and RAG-ready, so the next phase isn’t handed a wall of raw scan text to parse cold. Still no model call here — this is structuring, not reasoning.
Hands on A structured, chunked, RAG-ready footprint — folders + knowledge graph + embeddings.
Intelligence — The First LLM Call
03 · Phase · First LLM callThis is where the first LLM call of the engagement happens. Vyntryx plans how many agents this target actually needs and checks whether the aggregated footprint is enough to proceed. If it isn’t, it spawns a dedicated OSINT agent to crawl the open web for more before planning continues — one agent, one job, the same design principle behind every agent Vyntryx creates.
Hands on An attack plan — agent count and allocation, plus the enriched footprint.
OSINT Agent — Only If the Footprint Is Thin
Conditional · Returns to IntelligenceIntelligence spawns this satellite only when the aggregated footprint is too thin to plan against — the branch is labelled “if footprint is thin.” One agent, one job: it crawls the open web for more, then hands what it finds back to Intelligence so planning can continue.
Hands on Additional open-web reconnaissance, folded back into the plan.
Attack — The Plan Becomes Action
04 · Phase · Agents execute liveAgents execute against the target, “self-aware” enough to patch their own environment mid-run — installing a missing tool, or reinstalling a service that’s gone down — rather than stalling out. This is where the swarm runs: agents are spawned dynamically from what recon actually found, with scope re-checked before every sub-task.
Hands on Attempted exploits, proof-of-concept evidence, and candidate findings.
Report — Narrative Write-Up
05 · PhaseThe narrative write-up generates automatically from validated findings only — a report written for a human, not a terminal log. You get back an evidence-backed report, not a pile of scanner output, the moment the scan completes.
Hands on The generated narrative report, ready to package.
Export — Shareable Deliverable
06 · PhaseThe finished, shareable deliverable leaves the pipeline as DOCX and PDF. From here the report doesn’t stop at a file — it feeds the Share Portal, where any developer gets role-based view or edit access, and the Security Overview, where every engagement rolls up into one company-wide score.
Hands on The exported deliverable → Share Portal + Security Overview.
This is what “just tell Vyntryx” actually looks like.
A new scan needs one field. Three more, only if you want them.
Target
An IP address or a URL, plus a name for the scan — the only required setup. Click Launch and Vyntryx takes it from here.
Black-Box or White-Box
Black-box — no extra information given, attacked exactly as an outside attacker would see it. White-box — hand it source files, file patterns, directory structure, and application docs; the more context it starts with, the faster and deeper the testing goes.
Application Type
Web, cloud, thick-client, thin-client, and the rest of the ten categories Vyntryx covers. Naming the type up front means it runs the recon and attack playbooks built for that kind of target instead of one-size-fits-all checks.
Notifications
Add an email address and walk away. Vyntryx sends the finished, evidence-backed report the moment the scan completes — nobody has to babysit a progress bar.
Two ways to hand Vyntryx a target — pick one every time you launch.
- Give it a target and talk to it directly — “chat with Vyntryx.” Ask it to check one specific thing, chase a hunch, or redirect it mid-attack.
- The same specialist fleet and tooling as the autonomous path — just with a human calling the next move, live, in plain English.
- Best fit: a targeted question, an exploratory session, or the moment Vyntryx needs a steer only a human would think to give.
- Zero human intervention, start to finish — opens at the Script phase, closes at the Export phase, no supervision needed anywhere in between.
- Because nobody has to watch it, this is the mode built for scheduled, recurring scans — weekly, monthly, even daily — a real, shipped scheduling engine, not a mockup.
- Best fit: the standard engagement, and any continuous or compliance cadence that needs to run itself.
Both figures are real, measured LLM engine cost from actual production sessions — not an estimate.
Autonomous doesn't mean unsupervised: the same guardrails cover Full Scan mode as everywhere else in Vyntryx — a fixed list of catastrophic actions stays blocked outright, and going fully autonomous still takes a deliberate, typed confirmation, never a toggle flip.
The Status tab: the same six-phase pipeline, every Full Scan.
A Full Scan always moves through the same fixed pipeline, tracked phase by phase in the Status tab. A Chat session runs lighter — there's no formal phase pipeline to move through; instead, you see every step Vyntryx takes live, right in the conversation. Either way, nothing running underneath is ever a black box.
Script — deterministic recon running now, before a single LLM token is spent.
- Script — deterministic recon, no LLM involved yet.
- Aggregate — results organized into folders, knowledge graphs, and embeddings.
- Intelligence — the LLM turns on: plans the attack, decides how many agents, pulls in OSINT if needed.
- Attack — the agent fleet and swarm run the engagement live.
- Report — the narrative write-up generates automatically.
- Export — the finished, shareable deliverable.
Ten target types.
One engine underneath all of them.
Recon runs first on most engagements — script-based, deterministic, and building a full footprint of the target — before the LLM ever gets involved. That target-awareness is what lets one engine span the full range below, instead of a different specialist vendor for each category.
Web Applications
OWASP-class vulnerabilities through business-logic abuse chains.
Mobile — Android & iOS
Native binaries, mobile APIs, and on-device data storage.
Black-Box Testing
Attacked exactly as an outsider sees it — zero inside knowledge.
White-Box Testing
Full source and architecture access for deeper coverage.
Cloud
Misconfigurations and identity risk across cloud accounts.
Network
Internal and external infrastructure, hosts, and services.
SAST
Static source-code analysis — vulnerable paths, caught pre-deploy.
SCADA / OT
Industrial control systems and operational technology.
Thick-Client
Installed desktop applications and their local attack surface.
Thin-Client
Browser- and terminal-delivered apps with a light local footprint.
Every category above is available as a standard engagement; where a live attack round applies, Vyntryx Mode adds a deeper, sandboxed second pass.
Less noise, not just more findings.
Every finding already clears a validation gate before it's reported — a live proof-of-concept probe for common vulnerability classes, an independent fact-check against authoritative data for the rest. What's different here is what happens to the ones that don't hold up: instead of quietly disappearing the way a scanner dump would bury them, they move into a dedicated False Positives section, where a human reviews the AI's reasoning and overrides the call — restore it to Findings, or confirm the dismissal. Either decision is logged.
"The amount of noise created by the LLM is highly reduced here — this is not like other automated scanners."
Appears in Findings
Proven exploitable — a live PoC probe, or an independent fact-check against authoritative data — before a human ever has to ask "is this one real?"
Moves to False Positives
Didn't hold up under proof. Held in its own section for manual review — a human can restore it or confirm the call, and either way, the decision is logged.
One portal. Any developer — yours, theirs, or the client's.
Invite & onboard directly
- Role-based access from the start — view (read findings, reports & comments) or edit (also toggle status).
- Either a standing account, or a one-time link — delivered as a single email carrying both the link and its access password together. (An earlier version of this flow split those across two emails on the theory that keeping them apart was safer; that was dropped once it was clear the split itself mimics a well-known phishing delivery pattern that mail providers specifically filter for.)
- The one-time link always carries a built-in expiry. A standing account's access to a given assessment stays live until the pentester sets an expiry or revokes it directly — either action takes effect instantly.
Generate a link instead
- A shareable URL with a password — no account needed, no onboarding step.
- They view findings straight from that link, the moment they open it.
- Same rules still apply: a role, a non-permanent expiry, and it can be revoked instantly, any time.
| Capability | Excel Sheet | Vyntryx Share Portal |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | Attach and email a static file | Email invite — role-based, standing account or one-time link. No email? A shareable URL + password, no account needed. Both link types always carry a built-in expiry; a standing account's access stays live until the pentester sets one or revokes it. |
| Overview | Static snapshot as of send time | Overview page — live open/closed finding counts across every assessment granted |
| Findings detail | Flat rows, no structure | Findings page — severity, CVSS, CVE/CWE, framework mapping, confidence level |
| Discussion | Reply-all email chains, out of sync | Threaded comments per finding — pentester and recipient, in the same timeline as status-change events |
| Assignment & notifications | No owner — whoever opens the file first, or nobody | Assign a whole assessment to a specific person — email + in-app notification fires the moment access is granted; from there, every new comment or status change on any finding inside it fires its own notification too, and clicking it lands directly on that exact finding and comment thread, not a generic inbox |
| Status tracking | Manually edit the sheet and re-send | Status workflow (edit role) — open / closed / reopened, each change requiring a reason and logged as a timestamped audit entry |
| Audit trail | None | Full access log — IP, city/country, device/browser, event type — exportable as CSV |
| Access control | Anyone with the file has permanent access | Revoke instantly, any time — cascades to kill any developer access it spawned |
Say bye-bye to confusing Excel sheets and chains of emails.
One Security Overview. Every scan you've run, one score, one click deeper.
Every engagement rolls up into a single company-wide Security Overview — whether it ran in chat mode last week or fully autonomously eight months ago. A score and grade sit beside the metrics a security team already tracks, plus one counter no traditional dashboard has ever shown: how many zero-days Vyntryx has actually found. Every number is a button.
A real screenshot of the live Security Overview. The scores, counts, charts and trend are actual product output; only client hostnames have been redacted (shown as client-*.example) — public test targets such as testfire.net are left as-is. Every account's own Overview reflects only that account's real scans.
Self-Healing, Self-Learning, and Full Automation
Not a roadmap slide — every capability below is running in the product today.
- Installs its own tools. Missing tools are fetched automatically — apt/pip/go/npm/gem, plus a dedicated local tool manager for the rest. No hand-built Kali box required.
- Fixes its own failures. Classifies why (missing tool, wrong flags, timeout, missing service), then tries a rule-based fix, an internet search, and an LLM-synthesized fix in turn — re-verifying each, escalating to a human only if every attempt is exhausted.
- Drives real exploitation tooling per finding. On high/critical findings an agent chooses and parameterizes the right tool — SQL-injection extraction, XSS probes, SSRF checks, Metasploit modules.
- Watches the CVE feed for you. Continuously polls the national vulnerability database and GitHub security advisories, matching newly published CVEs to your target's tech stack.
- Researches new attack techniques on its own. On a knowledge gap it searches HackerOne, GitHub and PortSwigger automatically — escalating to a human only if it still can't find a confident answer.
The platform that watches itself
Vyntryx's always-on monitoring layer, running in the background of every session.
polls every
30 seconds
What Sentinel is built to track each pass. Each stream's detection logic is real; wiring all five into one always-on production pass is still being hardened — treat this ring as the design, not a guaranteed live demo.
Watches a target list against the live CVE feed and automatically re-scans a target when a newly published vulnerability matches its stack.
If attack-chain depth measurably regresses over several consecutive scans, Sentinel automatically reverts the most recent self-modification.
The pieces exist separately today — drafting a new specialist agent from a template, a sandbox for executing generated code in isolation, and the auto-rollback net — but they are not yet one autonomous pipeline. A proposed change is currently checked for valid syntax, not proven correct by an actual test run.
Full autonomy is only trustworthy if it can't talk its way out of a rule.
Ten independent guardrails already run on every action, every session — the checklist below is unchanged. What's new here is the deeper look at four of those guardrails specifically — the ones that carry the most weight once Vyntryx is running fully autonomously, with nobody watching in real time. None of them are behavioral guidelines the model is asked to respect: each is a control point wired into the pipeline itself, sitting outside the LLM's own reach.
Sandbox Isolation Is Real, Not Conceptual
When Vyntryx heals itself mid-scan — installing a tool that's missing, reinstalling or reconfiguring a service that fell over mid-attack — that repair happens inside a real, isolated sandbox, not a described one. A bad install, a broken dependency, a misconfigured service: if the fix itself goes wrong, it stays contained there. There is no path back into the real, production architecture running the actual engagement.
Human-in-the-Loop Is Architecture, Not a Setting
Anything the system classifies as dangerous pauses and waits for a human operator to approve or reject it, inside the product UI — a gate built into the pipeline itself, not a toggle a model can flip on its own initiative. If nobody responds in time, the action is rejected by default. It is never silently allowed through just because no one answered.
Out-of-Scope Discovery Always Stops and Asks
If an agent finds a second application, host, or domain sitting on the same server — one nobody put in scope — Vyntryx doesn't fold it in quietly. It stops, surfaces the discovery to the human operator, and waits: proceed with that target too, or leave it alone. Whether to expand the engagement is never the LLM's call to make on its own initiative.
Delete Is Never Automated — Read and Create Only
Even after an agent proves it gained elevated access on the live target — say, by creating a new privileged account purely as proof-of-concept evidence — that's the limit of what it's permitted to do. Read and create stay allowed, because they're what prove access was genuinely obtained. Delete is not, at any privilege level, on any live target, in any mode.
The full checklist — ten independent guardrails, running on every session, every action.
The aggression is real. So are the guardrails.
Round one already ends in a complete, evidence-backed report. Vyntryx Mode is the premium second pass on top of it: 2–3 days, roughly 9–10 million tokens, hunting zero-days against an isolated sandbox replica of the target's exact service-and-version stack — never the live system directly.
Available wherever a live attack round applies to the engagement — a pure source-code (SAST) review, for instance, has no live attack phase for a second round to build on.
"Round Two runs two to three days, spends roughly nine to ten million tokens, and goes into an aggressive, no-limits mode — built specifically to hunt zero-days more thoroughly than round one has time to."
— Vyntryx, on what Round Two is built to do- Pace and depth of payload iteration against the environment replica — no throttling on how hard the sandbox gets hit.
- Breadth of zero-day and CVE attempts tried against that replica before anything is called proven-safe.
- Willingness to try an approach a standard scan wouldn't risk, because a mistake here lands on a replica, not the client's infrastructure.
- Out-of-scope still stops the system. A second host or domain nobody agreed to always halts Vyntryx and notifies a human operator — even mid-Round-Two.
- Read and create, never delete, on the live target. Even when a validated payload runs against the real system to confirm access — for example, creating an elevated-privilege account purely as PoC evidence — delete is never permitted, at any access level obtained.
How the sandbox actually earns that trust
Recommended when the client has more time and budget to spend — the qualifier that makes this an upsell, not a default.
- No new sales cycle. Same login, same account already running round one — Vyntryx Mode is an option inside a product the client already uses, not a second vendor relationship to negotiate.
- Compute becomes the pricing lever. Round Two is slower and heavier by design — a real sandbox, a real replica, real payloads — and that extra token spend is exactly what a premium tier should be priced on, instead of being absorbed into every standard engagement.
- Opt-in, and it pre-qualifies the buyer. Recommended, not required — the clients who take it already have the time and budget for deeper assurance, precisely who a premium add-on should be sold to.
One engine, four buyers.
Front is who it's for. Flip any card for why they buy.
Two ways to deploy Vyntryx.
SaaS — Fully Hosted
Vyntryx hosts the Kali Linux instance, the agent fleet, and your report database. Log in, give it a URL, get a report — Vyntryx downloads, installs, updates, and drives the underlying Kali instance end to end, with nothing on your side to provision or maintain.
SaaS + On-Prem Hybrid
The Kali Linux instance and the full report database stay inside your own cloud account or a VM you control. Only that Kali instance talks back to Vyntryx's control plane — you never have to expose or reconfigure your internal network.
Same 45+ specialist agent fleet. Same validation gate. Same guardrails. You're not choosing between two products — you're only choosing where the box sits.
Autonomous pentesting attracted extraordinary capital in the twelve months to August 2026 — five separate raises landed in this category alone: Novee ($51.5M within four months of founding), XBOW (~$270M lifetime, past a $1.3B valuation), Horizon3.ai ($250M Series E, past a $2B valuation), RunSybil ($40M Series A), and Mindgard ($30M Series A). At the same time, nearly every human-led or scanner-first incumbent shipped its first agentic tier in 2026 rather than being displaced outright — Cobalt, HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Astra, and PortSwigger all retrofitted autonomy onto an existing product this year.
Vyntryx's architecture — autonomous by default, with a dial-down to human approval, rather than the reverse — is structurally ahead of that retrofit pattern. But it competes directly against several purpose-built, richly-funded autonomy-first pure-plays that got there first. On pricing, the market splits three ways: most vendors stay quote-only and sales-led; a flat per-test price near $3,500–$4,000 is emerging as a specific anchor (Cobalt, Intruder); and a handful of smaller, SMB-focused vendors publish exact tiers. Astra is the only vendor in this set combining genuine autonomy with fully transparent self-serve pricing.
The table below scores 17 capabilities across Vyntryx and seven of the most relevant competitors, built entirely from each vendor's own published materials — no cell is a guess about a competitor's roadmap. Unknown means the sources reviewed didn't document a capability, not that it's confirmed absent; No is used only where a vendor's own detailed capability list makes the omission a fair inference. Toggle the button below to see the seven rows where no competitor in this set claims the same Yes Vyntryx does.
| Capability | Vyntryx | Novee | XBOW | CAI | PentestGPT | Horizon3 (NodeZero) |
Pentera | Astra |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01Autonomous multi-step discovery (no human in loop by default) | Yesfully_auto default mode; MasterLoop live replanning; AutonomousTurnController added Aug 2026 |
Yesdetect→exploit-validate→remediate→retest loop (novee.security) | Yes“no human operator required” (xbow.com) | Partialframework is BYO-autonomy; alias models run autonomously in vendor's own benchmark entries | Partialpentestgpt_agent mode autonomous but pluggable onto an external CLI; pentestgpt_legacy is human-in-the-loop |
Yes“agentless attack execution,” “not a scanner” (horizon3.ai) | Noexplicitly human-governed, “under customer control” (pentera.io) | PartialPentest Auto tier is autonomous; Pentest Expert tier is human+AI hybrid — separate SKUs |
| 02PoC/evidence-validated findings before reporting | YesValidationGate + 5-tier PoC validator + vuln_validator.py LLM verdict pipeline | Yes“every finding validated with a working exploit” (novee.security) | Yes“independently proves exploitability,” near-zero FP claimed (xbow.com) | Unknownvalidation depends on the user's own agent config; no documented built-in gate | Unknownno documented automated FP-elimination gate in the repo | Yes“proves exploitable attack paths,” 1-click Fix Actions with automated retest | Yesvalidates exploitability, but under human final review, not auto-publish | YesPentest Expert “zero false positives guarantee” via manual verification; Pentest Auto approach not detailed |
| 03Exploit chaining (multi-step attack path linking) | YesExploitChainer agent: recon → auth bypass → RCE | Yes“chained attack paths,” “workflow manipulation” (novee.security) | Yes“vulnerability chaining into complete, working end-to-end attack paths” (xbow.com) | Partialsupports recon→exploit→escalation→lateral-movement→exfil phases; chaining logic is user-built | Partial4-stage pipeline incl. post-exploitation/privesc/lateral movement, but no dedicated chaining engine documented | Yes“chains web-app abuse into credential theft, lateral movement, cloud pivots” (horizon3.ai) | Yeslateral movement, privesc, control bypass documented in the Core module | Unknownnot explicitly documented on site |
| 04Conversational AI chat-pentest mode | Yeschat_router.py, 25 personas, chat-only sessions with no scan pipeline | Unknownno chat-copilot interface documented | Unknownnot documented | YesCLI/agentic conversational interaction is core to framework design | Yeslegacy mode is explicitly a conversational/session-based reasoning loop | Unknownplatform is dashboard/report-driven; not documented | Yes“Pentera Peer” AI-native co-pilot interface | Yeschatbot-guided remediation flow, “Astra chatbot” |
| 05MITRE ATT&CK mapping | YesVyntryx Mind “MITRE kill-chain view”; ForensicsAgent/DFIRAgent explicit ATT&CK mapping | Unknownnot mentioned in research | Unknownfindings typed by vuln class (RCE/SSRF/XXE), not ATT&CK-technique-mapped per research | Unknownnot mentioned | Unknownnot mentioned | UnknownThreat Actor Intelligence is the closest documented feature; ATT&CK not named | Unknowncompliance-mapping list doesn't name MITRE ATT&CK explicitly | Unknownnot mentioned |
| 06Self-healing execution (auto-retry w/ root-cause classification) | YesHealingAgent, 10 retry attempts w/ root-cause classification | Unknownnot documented | Unknownnot documented | Unknowndangerous-command guardrails documented, not self-healing retry | Unknownnot documented | Unknown“zero downtime” execution documented, not retry-specific | Unknownnot documented | Unknownnot documented |
| 07RAG-backed live threat-intel KB (HackTricks/WSTG/CVE-fed) | YesQdrant vector DB; RnDAgent “always-on, zero cold-start” background researcher | Unknownnot documented | Unknownnot documented | PartialWebSearch tool + 300+ LLM routing gives live info access; no documented persistent vector-DB RAG KB | Partialmulti-provider LLM support + “Pentesting Task Tree” context; no documented dedicated RAG KB | Unknownnot documented | Unknownnot documented | Unknownnot documented |
| 08Auto-generated blue-team detection rules (Sigma/SPL/KQL) | YesDetectionAgent, per confirmed finding | Nodetailed capability list; remediation guidance is dev-facing, not SIEM-rule-facing | Nodetailed capability list; remediation guidance is dev-facing | Unknowncould be user-built via tools; not documented as built-in | Unknownsame reasoning | Nodetailed capability list incl. Fix Actions/Threat Intel; rule-gen not listed | NoResolve is remediation/ticket-routing, not detection-rule generation | NoAI auto-fix suggestions are IDE-facing code fixes, not detection rules |
| 09Multi-format evidence-backed reports (DOCX/PDF/HTML/SARIF) | Yesvyntryx_docx.py + generator.py: DOCX/HTML/PDF/SARIF/JSON/MD | Partialevidence/reproduction steps documented; export formats not itemized | Partialdecision logs + remediation guidance documented; formats not itemized | UnknownPhoenix/OpenTelemetry tracing documented, not a report-generator feature | Unknownno report-generation pipeline documented — a testing tool, not a report deliverable | Partialreporting via dashboards/Fix Actions; SARIF not mentioned | Partialaudit-ready proof of fix via Resolve; formats not itemized | Partialcompliance dashboards + completion certificate; DOCX/PDF/SARIF not itemized |
| 10Human-approval safety gate (adjustable autonomy) | YesApprovalQueue: approval/guidance/credential/healing types, witness-signed, fully_auto/approval_required toggle mid-scan | Partial“reviewable/approvable test plans,” “scoped and rate-limited execution” | Partial“scoped deployments and logged/auditable actions” governance layer | Yes“guardrails for prompt-injection defense and dangerous-command blocking” | Partiallegacy mode inherently human-in-the-loop; agent mode's gating depends on the underlying CLI's own permissions | Partial“production-safe,” “zero downtime” guardrails; no documented per-action approval queue | Yes“attack throttling, defined impact limits, emergency stop, audit logging,” “customer control” | Unknownnot documented for the Pentest Auto tier specifically |
| 11Cross-session attack-graph memory | YesNeo4j/Graphiti temporal graph; kill chains persist across sessions/targets | Nonot documented among capabilities | Nonot documented among capabilities | Unknownframework — user could build this; not documented as built-in | Unknownsame reasoning | Nonot documented among capabilities | Nonot documented among capabilities | Nonot documented among capabilities |
| 12Live interactive shell + credential vault | YesFloating Shell Workspace: real PTY, vault save/restore, live websocket terminal | Noblack-box, agentless/sensor-less by design | Noblack-box URL-only testing; no shell-access feature documented | Yesbuilt-in tools: LinuxCmd, SSH tunneling — CLI/shell-centric by design | YesDocker-first, 20+ pre-installed tools, persistent session state, direct shell/tool execution | Noagentless; no persistent target-system access documented | Noagentless deployment model | Nonot documented |
| 13Benchmarked against a third-party open academic autonomy standard | YesAug 2026: Labs tab runs 33 AutoPenBench challenges end-to-end via ChatAgent w/ ValidationGate evidence-based grading; no specific pass-rate published | Noself-reported comparison vs. “a leading open source harness running Claude Opus,” not a named academic benchmark | Partiallive HackerOne/MSRC leaderboard rank is a different kind of proof — real production competition, not a controlled academic benchmark | PartialCybench pass@3 leaderboard, self-reported by vendor, not independently verified | Partialbenchmarked on the XBOW validation benchmark; independently re-tested in arXiv 2607.13085, which found the self-reported number exceeded by an unmodified baseline | Nonot documented | Nonot documented | Nonot documented |
| 14Open-source / self-hostable | Noproprietary SaaS product; ATOM engine not published as open source | No | No | YesMIT + custom Research-Use License; free self-hosted Community Edition via pip | YesMIT license, self-hosted via git clone + Docker | No | No | No |
| 15Published self-serve pricing | Unknownno public pricing page found in the Vyntryx product documentation reviewed for this research | No“book a demo” only | Noquote-based, “request a quote” | PartialPro tier published: EUR 350/mo or EUR 3,990/yr; Community Edition free | Yesfree — $0; only cost is the user's own LLM/CLI usage | Noquote-based; only a third-party estimate exists | Noquote-based; only a third-party estimate exists | Yesfully published, granular — e.g. Pentest Auto $2,999/yr |
| 16White-label / reseller support | Yesbranding.py, .env-driven, 3 apps incl. the Vyntryx-branded demo build | Unknown | UnknownAWS/GCP/Oracle/Microsoft marketplace listings are a distribution channel, not confirmed product whitelabeling | Unknown | N/Aopen source — no vendor-managed whitelabel program | Yesexplicitly “channel-first company”; Tech Mahindra + Tech Data partner-branded distribution | PartialNetpoleon distributor partnership in APAC; not documented as product-level whitelabeling | Unknown |
| 17India/APAC presence + pricing | Unknownno India commercial entity, India-specific pricing, or India customer base documented in the Vyntryx materials reviewed | NoTel Aviv HQ; no India presence found | NoSeattle HQ; APAC expansion centered on South Korea, no India presence found | Partialglobally downloadable open source incl. India; no dedicated India office/GTM | N/Anot a company | YesTech Mahindra Pune partnership 2024 + Tech Data APAC distribution incl. India; channel-first, no direct India legal entity | PartialIndia covered via Netpoleon distributor; no direct India office/customers documented | Yesdual-HQ'd India/US, Delhi/Chandigarh engineering base, CERT-In empanelled, India-origin pricing in USD |
Rows 1–13 assess a technical/product capability; rows 14–17 assess a business-model/GTM attribute. Every No against a well-documented competitor (Novee, XBOW, Horizon3, Pentera) reflects an absence from that vendor's own detailed, otherwise-comprehensive published capability list — not an assumption of non-existence. Every Unknown for Vyntryx (rows 15 and 17) reflects the absence of a pricing page or India-GTM material in the two Vyntryx sources used to build this table — read it as "not documented," never as "No."
Where Vyntryx is going next
Exciting — and clearly labeled as not-yet-shipped.
Self-improving code
Closing the loop teased in Sentinel's roadmap — an engine that doesn't just propose a change, but actually tests it against a real target, measures whether it performed better, and only then decides to adopt or discard it, fully autonomously.
Why it matters: turns the auto-rollback safety net into a true self-improvement gate.
A fine-tuned model of our own
A large language model in the 30 to 70 billion parameter range, fine-tuned specifically on a large, pentesting-specific corpus — purpose-built for offensive security reasoning, rather than a general-purpose model adapted to the task.
Why it matters: reasoning built for exploitation, not retrofitted onto it.
Deeper autonomous decision-making in Sentinel
Moving Sentinel from "detects and alerts" toward genuinely deciding, on its own and within guardrails, what to test next and how to adapt its own strategy over time.
Why it matters: from a watchful monitor to an active strategist — still inside the same guardrails.
Dark-web OSINT and intelligence gathering
Extends today's OSINT — logged-in reconnaissance across pentest platforms, Discord, and GitHub, plus general reconnaissance across the open web — down into the dark web: fully automated intelligence gathering, tracked action by action and surfaced in the same Assets and Debug tabs as everything else Vyntryx does.
Why it matters: the same full audit trail you already get today, extended below the surface web.
An anonymized, consent-gated training flywheel
An explicit opt-in on the client onboarding form — decline it, and nothing is collected. For clients who opt in, Vyntryx collects only the anonymized sequence of attack steps and paths it took, never real names or URLs, to train and improve future models.
Why it matters: models that keep improving, without ever trading on a client's identity.
SOC / EDR / XDR integration
Automating the SOC grind end to end — log processing, closing tickets and incidents, investigating what happened, and tracking attack patterns over time — backed by 24/7 high-alert monitoring across the client's network and any honeypots, kept continuously updated, and an ongoing radar across the internet and dark web for the company's own name and assets.
Why it matters: from a point-in-time pentest report to always-on defensive coverage, on one platform.
Give a URL. Click Scan. Get the report.
English is the new pentesting language — and Vyntryx speaks it fluently.
SQL Injection — Login Endpoint
Proof-of-concept validated. Request/response captured. Steps to reproduce attached. Ready for report.