Two logic-first testers. One tests the AI too.
Escape and SuperPentest agree on the hard part: real vulnerabilities live in business logic, so you have to learn the application before you test it and prove exploitability rather than guess. Both do that well. The difference is the AI surface — SuperPentest also tests the agents inside your product — and that every SuperPentest finding is reproduced from a clean session. Here is an honest comparison, with Escape details from public materials as of October 2026.
The short version: this is the closest match in the field. Both are EU, autonomous, business-logic-first, and both validate exploitability instead of raising raw alerts. Escape stands out for turning findings into regression tests that re-run on every build. SuperPentest stands out for testing the AI agents inside your product and for reproducing every finding from a clean session with hash-chained evidence. Choose on whether AI-agent testing matters to you.
At a glance
| Capability | SuperPentest | Escape |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomous / multi-agent | ✓ | ✓ (Cascade) |
| Learns the app before testing | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web & API testing | ✓ | ✓ |
| Authenticated testing | ✓ | ✓ |
| Business logic | ✓ | ✓ (focus) |
| Exploitability validation | ✓ clean-session | ✓ full request chain |
| Regression tests on every build | Re-run on demand/schedule | ✓ |
| AI-agent & prompt-injection testing | ✓ | — |
| EU-based / EU hosting | ✓ Frankfurt | ✓ Paris |
| Published pricing | ✓ from €3,500 | — (quote) |
Where Escape is strong
Escape, based in Paris, is an autonomous testing platform built around business logic. Its multi-agent engine learns an application's user roles, state and data model before testing, proves findings with a full request chain and attack-path validation, and — a genuine strength — converts confirmed findings into regression tests that re-run automatically on every future build through its DAST engine. For engineering-led teams shipping web apps and APIs frequently who want logic testing wired into CI, it is a strong, well-designed option.
Where SuperPentest differs
SuperPentest matches Escape on the logic-first fundamentals and adds two things. First, it tests the AI agents inside your product — direct and indirect prompt injection proven with a planted canary, tool-call and permission boundaries, and MCP attack surface — which a web/API logic tester does not cover. Second, every candidate is reproduced from a clean session, with the request, control and replays captured as hash-chained evidence mapped to SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI-DSS, NIS2, DORA and OWASP. Pricing is published from €3,500. AI-agent testing → · how we test logic →
Which to choose
- Choose Escape if your priority is business-logic testing wired into CI with findings as regression tests, and you do not need AI-agent testing.
- Choose SuperPentest if you also need to test the AI features in your product, or want every finding reproduced from a clean session with evidence mapped to compliance controls.
- Both are EU and logic-first — the deciding question is usually the AI surface. See the full field.
FAQ
What is the difference between SuperPentest and Escape?
Both are EU, autonomous, business-logic-first platforms that validate exploitability. Escape turns findings into CI regression tests; SuperPentest adds AI-agent/prompt-injection testing and reproduces every finding from a clean session.
Is SuperPentest an alternative to Escape?
Yes — both are strong on authenticated, business-logic and API testing with validated findings, and both are EU-based. SuperPentest's additions are AI-agent testing and clean-session reproduction with hash-chained evidence. Verify current capabilities with each vendor.
Evaluate SuperPentest. Book a demo or request an evaluation account. See the full comparison.