Escape vs StackHawk

Which Is Better: Escape or StackHawk?

Escape is an agentless API security platform that discovers shadow APIs and tests for business logic flaws. StackHawk is a developer-first DAST tool that embeds API security testing directly into CI/CD pipelines.

Escape and StackHawk both target API security, but they approach the problem from different angles. Escape is an agentless platform that excels at external API discovery and business logic testing.

It uses AI-powered fingerprinting and OSINT techniques to find APIs you may not even know are exposed, then tests them for OWASP Top 10 risks, broken object-level authorization (BOLA), and other advanced flaws.

StackHawk is a developer-first DAST tool built to run inside CI/CD pipelines, catching vulnerabilities on every build before code reaches production.

The choice comes down to your primary concern. If your biggest worry is shadow APIs and complex authorization flaws across a sprawling API surface, Escape gives you visibility that pipeline-only tools cannot.

If your goal is to give every developer fast security feedback on every pull request with predictable per-seat pricing, StackHawk delivers that workflow with minimal friction.

Both tools represent the next generation of API security testing and are far more effective for modern API architectures than legacy DAST scanners that were designed for server-rendered web applications.

What Are the Key Differences?

Escape vs StackHawk: How Do They Compare?

API Discovery

This is where Escape differentiates itself most clearly. Escape scans externally using subdomain enumeration, AI-powered fingerprinting, and open-source intelligence to build an inventory of every API exposed across your infrastructure.

This catches shadow APIs, forgotten endpoints, and services that were never documented — the kind of targets that attackers find first.

StackHawk takes a code-repository approach instead. It integrates with your source control to map your application landscape, identifying APIs from your codebase and OpenAPI specifications.

This works well for known, actively developed services but will not catch APIs that exist outside your main repositories or were deployed by other teams without documentation.

For organizations that already have tight control over their API inventory, StackHawk’s approach is sufficient. For those with sprawling microservice architectures, acquisitions, or legacy services, Escape’s external discovery fills a gap that internal-only tools leave open.

Testing Depth and Vulnerability Coverage

Escape’s scanner was built specifically for API security and goes beyond standard OWASP checks.

It tests for broken object-level authorization (BOLA), broken function-level authorization (BFLA), insecure direct object references (IDOR), and other business logic flaws that require understanding how API endpoints relate to each other.

The GraphQL engine runs over 100 security tests covering introspection abuse, query batching attacks, depth limiting, and field-level authorization.

StackHawk covers the OWASP Top 10 for APIs and performs solid dynamic testing against REST, GraphQL, SOAP, and gRPC endpoints.

Its breadth of protocol support is wider than Escape’s, and it handles authenticated scanning well through YAML-configured auth flows.

Where it is less deep is in the business logic layer — StackHawk is effective at finding injection flaws, misconfigurations, and known vulnerability patterns, but it does not probe authorization boundaries as aggressively as Escape.

CI/CD Integration and Developer Workflow

StackHawk was designed from the ground up to live inside the development pipeline. It runs as part of every CI/CD build, giving developers immediate feedback when they introduce a security issue.

Integration is available for GitHub Actions, GitLab CI/CD, Jenkins, CircleCI, Azure DevOps, and AWS pipelines. Authentication is configured as code in YAML, which means scan configurations live in version control alongside the application.

Escape integrates with GitHub Actions and GitLab CI but its primary model is periodic or on-demand scanning rather than per-build execution. The agentless architecture means there is no agent to install or maintain, which simplifies deployment for security teams but provides less tight coupling with individual developer workflows.

StackHawk gives developers a faster feedback loop. Escape gives security teams broader visibility.

The right choice depends on whether you prioritize developer experience or broad coverage.

Pricing and Accessibility

StackHawk publishes transparent pricing: $42/month per code contributor on the Pro plan, $59/month on Enterprise, with custom pricing for teams over 50 developers. Unlimited scans, unlimited applications, no concurrency restrictions.

A 14-day free trial of the enterprise plan is available for evaluation.

Escape uses custom enterprise pricing. There is no free tier or self-service plan.

This positions Escape as a mid-market to enterprise purchase that typically requires a sales conversation.

For startups and small teams, StackHawk is the more accessible option. For larger organizations with budget for specialized API security tooling, Escape’s pricing reflects the depth of its discovery and testing capabilities.

Reporting and Compliance

Both tools produce scan results in standard formats including SARIF for integration with GitHub and GitLab code scanning.

Escape provides compliance-oriented reporting aligned with SOC 2, PCI DSS, and other frameworks, which appeals to organizations with audit requirements.

StackHawk offers compliance dashboards and integrates findings into developer workflows through Jira, Slack, and other collaboration tools.

Escape’s reporting leans toward security team consumption — risk dashboards, API inventory views, and executive summaries. StackHawk’s reporting is more developer-facing, with remediation guidance written in the developer’s language and easy re-scan workflows to validate fixes.

When Should You Choose Escape vs StackHawk?

Choose Escape if:

• You need to discover shadow APIs and undocumented endpoints across your infrastructure
• Business logic vulnerabilities (BOLA, BFLA, IDOR) are a primary concern
• Your organization has a large GraphQL API surface requiring deep testing
• You want agentless deployment with no agents to install or maintain
• Your security team needs compliance-ready reporting for audits
• You have enterprise budget and prefer deep API security coverage

Choose StackHawk if:

• You want DAST running on every CI/CD build with fast developer feedback
• Transparent per-contributor pricing fits your budget model
• You need to test across REST, GraphQL, SOAP, and gRPC protocols
• Developer experience and self-service remediation are top priorities
• You want authentication-as-code in YAML stored alongside your application
• Your team is smaller and needs a free tier to get started
• Integration with Jenkins, CircleCI, or Azure DevOps is required

For more AppSec Santa comparisons, see our API security tools and DAST tools categories.

Frequently Asked Questions

Suphi Cankurt

AppSec Enthusiast

LinkedIn Twitter

10+ years in application security. Reviews and compares 170 AppSec tools across 11 categories to help teams pick the right solution. More about me →