#Side by side
| Breach & attack simulation | Autonomous pentesting | |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | Do controls detect/block known techniques? | Which exposures are exploitable and chainable? |
| How | Agents on endpoints replay scripted TTPs | External and internal agents discover, exploit, chain |
| Finds new attack paths | No — limited to the scenario library | Yes |
| Needs endpoint agents | Usually | No for external/web/cloud; runner for internal |
| Output | Pass/fail per technique, control gaps | Proven paths with evidence, fixes, retests |
| Best for | Detection engineering, control regression | Exposure reduction, remediation priority |
| Weakness | Tests the attack you expected | Needs scope and safety engineering for production |
#Which to buy first
If you don't know what an attacker can reach today, start with autonomous pentesting: it answers the exposure question and produces findings you can fix this month. If your exposure is well understood and the weak point is detection — you suspect techniques would slip past your EDR and SIEM — BAS gives faster, repeatable signal on control coverage. Mature programs use autonomous testing to find paths and BAS-style replay to keep detections from regressing.
One practical difference is deployment: BAS typically requires agents on representative endpoints, while external, web and cloud-identity autonomous testing needs no endpoint software at all.
#Using both
The combination is stronger than either: autonomous testing finds the path, BAS-style replay of that path becomes a regression test for detection. BadAI does this inside one loop — Rogue proves a chain, Nightwatch checks whether each step was detected and drafts the missing rule.
Talk to an operator.
Thirty minutes, no slides. We'll show you what bad AI finds in one of your systems.
Book a briefing