An AI security scan is not a penetration test. Here's the real difference.
Most general penetration tests never scope the LLM layer at all — prompt injection, system-prompt disclosure and jailbreak bypass aren't things Burp, ZAP or Nessus know to look for. A scoped chatbot scan and a full manual pentest solve different problems. Here's how they actually compare.
Check your inbox!
Your Starter Map is on its way. If it doesn't arrive in a minute, check spam.
What each one actually checks.
Read this before assuming a penetration test report already covers your chatbot — check the exact question in the FAQ below.
| AI Sec Tester scan | Manual penetration test | |
|---|---|---|
| What it targets | The LLM/chatbot layer specifically — OWASP LLM Top 10 | Application, network and infrastructure layer — OWASP Top 10 (web), not LLM-specific unless explicitly scoped |
| Prompt injection / jailbreak checks | Yes — core check on every tier | Only if the scope explicitly names it — most scopes don't |
| Who runs it | Automated probes, human authorization review before it starts | Human tester(s), fully manual engagement |
| Price | $47 or $197, one-time | Typically thousands to tens of thousands, scope-dependent — [UNVERIFIED] broad industry range, not a quote |
| Turnaround | Minutes once approved and paid | Days to weeks, scope-dependent |
| Authorization required | Yes — ownership or written permission, checked before approval | Yes — always required for any legitimate engagement |
| Output | Pass/Fail scorecard + PDF with evidence and remediation per finding | Full written report, findings ranked by severity, often with a debrief call |
The honest answer: they're not competitors.
A manual penetration test is broader and deeper — a human tester probes your whole application, network and infrastructure, and can chase down anything unusual. But "broad" cuts both ways: unless the statement of work explicitly names prompt injection, insecure output handling or excessive agency, the LLM layer is very often skipped entirely, because most AppSec testers weren't trained on it and most scoping templates predate chatbots.
An AI Sec Tester scan is narrow on purpose. It only checks the chatbot layer — the OWASP LLM Top 10 — at a fraction of the cost and turnaround of a full engagement. It does not replace a pentest, and it doesn't claim to. Think of it as the fast first-pass filter for the one layer a general pentest is most likely to miss, run before or alongside a fuller assessment.
The one question to ask before assuming you're covered
If you already have a pentest report, don't guess — check it. Does the scope explicitly name prompt injection, insecure output handling, or excessive agency? If none of those terms appear, your chatbot's LLM-specific risk almost certainly wasn't tested, regardless of how thorough the rest of the report looks.
Should I get the scan instead of a pentest?
Not "instead of" — most teams need both, for different layers. If you can only afford one right now and your product is a chatbot, the scan covers the layer a general pentest most often misses, at a much lower price point.
What does the scan cost?
$47 for the Normal tier (5 core OWASP LLM checks) or $197 for Advanced (all 10 OWASP LLM Top-10 categories, 15 checks total). Both are one-time, no subscription.
Does the scan replace a compliance audit?
No. It doesn't issue or imply any compliance certification (SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI, HIPAA). It produces a technical scorecard and report, nothing more.
Check the layer your pentest probably skipped.
Normal $47 or Advanced $197, one-time. No charge until your request is reviewed and approved.