COMPARE / VS TENZAI
Autonomy inside explicit boundaries.
Autonomous offensive-security research is a serious emerging category. 0day Factory's emphasis is full-system context, customer-controlled execution and evidence that re-tests — autonomy that stays inside explicit organizational boundaries.
Where autonomous offensive security fits — and where 0day Factory is different.
Autonomous offensive-security efforts are pushing research on how agents discover and chain weaknesses. The buyer questions are context depth, safety/scope controls and whether findings come with defensible proof.
This comparison describes the general, publicly understood approach of the category. It is not a claim about any specific vendor's current capabilities — verify those directly with the vendor. 0day Factory does not publish competitor benchmarks it has not independently run.
Compare on what actually matters.
Evaluate any offensive-security tool on these dimensions. The right-hand column describes the general category approach, not a specific vendor's current product.
| Dimension | 0day Factory | Autonomous offensive security |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility | Reasons across software, infra, identity, controls, org policy and runtime together. | Research-driven; verify scope of context used. |
| Black-box execution | Tests the attacker-reachable surface within approved scope. | Verify directly. |
| White-box context | Uses approved source, architecture and prior findings as fuel. | Verify directly. |
| Infrastructure | Cloud, hosts, networks and exposed services in the model. | Verify directly. |
| Identity | Users, service identities, roles, tokens and tenant boundaries. | Verify directly. |
| Security controls | Tests whether WAF/IAM/network/endpoint controls actually stopped the path. | Verify directly. |
| Org-policy context | Scope, exceptions, SDLC rules and threat models inform the investigation. | Verify how org-specific rules are modeled. |
| Exploit proof | Every finding carries path, safe validation and evidence. | Verify evidence model directly. |
| Re-test | Re-runs the original hypothesis to prove the fix held. | Verify directly. |
| Customer-controlled execution | Workers run near approved targets under your authorization and audit. | Verify the execution and authorization model directly. |
Questions, answered.
Should I replace autonomous offensive security with 0day Factory?
Often they are complementary. The useful question is which tool produces defensible exploit proof in your environment, with context, re-test and customer-controlled execution. Evaluate both on the dimensions above and verify each vendor's current capabilities directly.
Compare on exploit proof, not severity scores.
Request access and see a de-identified investigation end to end: hypothesis, path, safe validation, evidence and re-test.