Start
On-demand audit
Launch an authorized AI pentest from the audit console, starting from $49/mo.
Compare / Aikido
Aikido Alternative for AI Pentesting
Aikido is a broad AppSec platform. BugBunny is what you choose when the problem is narrower and sharper: find exploitable vulnerabilities, prove them, rank them, and hand engineering a report they can fix.
HackerOne Business
No. 1
Ranked No. 1 on HackerOne Business as of May 2026.
CVEs discovered
110+
Public and coordinated disclosures across real software.
Finding quality
Verified PoCs
Exploit evidence, severity context, and remediation guidance.
Audit access
$49/mo
On-demand authorized audits before scaling into Continuous Bunny.
HackerOne leaderboard positions can change over time; the Business ranking claim is date-qualified for the public marketing page.
Coverage path
Start with one audit. Scale into continuous exploit validation.
BugBunny does not have to stay a one-off scan. Teams can begin with direct audit access, then move high-value targets into Continuous Bunny for recurring coverage, GitHub-connected workflows, and patch-oriented review. Continuous coverage costs more than a single audit, but it is built for assets where stale security evidence is the expensive risk.
Prove
Exploit validation
Get verified PoCs, severity rationale, affected targets, and remediation guidance.
Fix
Engineering handoff
Use reports, follow-ups, GitHub workflows, and patch-oriented review on higher tiers.
Continue
Continuous Bunny
Upgrade high-value targets into recurring scans, patch checks, PR visibility, and ongoing coverage.
Comparison
BugBunny vs Aikido
The Aikido comparison is a scope decision. If you need broad AppSec coverage, Aikido may fit. If you need pentest-style evidence that answers "is this exploitable and how do we fix it?", BugBunny is the more direct choice.
Verdict
Verdict: choose BugBunny when the job is autonomous pentesting and exploit validation. Choose Aikido when the job is AppSec consolidation across a wider security program.
| Area | BugBunny | Aikido |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Autonomous pentesting, exploit validation, report generation, and follow-up investigation. | Broad AppSec suite spanning code, cloud, dependency, container, and posture workflows. |
| Best buyer | Teams that want pentest-style evidence and validated vulnerability reports. | Teams consolidating multiple AppSec tools into one platform. |
| Signal model | Proof-first: validated PoCs, severity context, remediation guidance, and public CVE evidence. | Breadth-first: broad coverage, integrations, workflow consolidation, and posture visibility. |
| Starting point | On-demand authorized audits from $49/mo for teams that want to validate a target quickly. | Publicly listed plans for broader AppSec coverage. |
| When it wins | When the board, customer, or engineering team needs exploit evidence and a fix path. | When the security team wants one platform for many AppSec categories. |
Why switch
The stronger BugBunny case.
Each comparison only matters if it helps your team choose. These are the practical reasons BugBunny is the sharper option for this buying decision.
Sharper buying question
Aikido asks whether you want one place for many AppSec workflows. BugBunny asks whether your team needs a validated security audit with exploitable findings and clear remediation.
Less dashboard fatigue
Broad platforms can create more queues to triage. BugBunny is optimized for higher-signal audit outputs: fewer vague alerts, more verified evidence.
Better fit for audit moments
When a launch, customer review, or security deadline requires concrete proof, a focused AI pentest can be easier to defend than another posture score.
Where BugBunny differs
Built for teams that need proof strong enough to act on.
01
BugBunny is purpose-built for autonomous pentesting rather than broad AppSec inventory management.
02
Reports emphasize proof-of-concept evidence, CVSS context, exploitability, and remediation guidance.
03
The trust story is public: 110+ CVEs and a No. 1 HackerOne Business ranking as of May 2026.
Choose BugBunny if
You need pentest outcomes, not another generalized AppSec queue.
Choose BugBunny when you need pentest-style outputs, verified exploitability, and a public research track record rather than another broad application-security dashboard.
Choose Aikido if
You need broad AppSec consolidation across many categories.
Choose Aikido when your team wants an integrated AppSec suite across many software supply-chain and posture-management categories.
FAQ
Aikido alternative questions
Why choose BugBunny instead of a broader AppSec platform like Aikido?
Choose BugBunny when the priority is autonomous pentesting and exploit validation. Broad AppSec suites are useful for coverage and workflow consolidation, but BugBunny is built around verified PoCs, audit-ready reporting, and public research proof.
Is BugBunny a Aikido alternative?
Yes. BugBunny is an autonomous pentesting platform for teams that want on-demand authorized audits, verified proof-of-concept findings, and reports that engineering can act on. The clearest reason to choose BugBunny is the combination of public proof, transparent audit access, and validated exploit evidence.
What proof does BugBunny have?
BugBunny has a public record of 110+ CVEs, a No. 1 HackerOne Business ranking as of May 2026, and hall-of-fame disclosures across developer tooling, infrastructure, and open source software.
Does BugBunny verify findings?
Yes. BugBunny focuses on validated findings with proof-of-concept evidence, severity context, and remediation guidance so teams can distinguish exploitable issues from scanner noise.
How much does BugBunny cost?
BugBunny offers on-demand authorized audits starting at $49 per month, with higher tiers for more audits, AI follow-ups, GitHub workflows, compliance-ready reporting, Continuous Bunny, and enterprise coverage.
Run the comparison on your target
Try an authorized BugBunny audit before you commit.
Use BugBunny when the security question is concrete: can this target be exploited, what evidence proves it, and what should engineering fix first?