Coding & Development Review
StackHawk is an application and API security platform that runs DAST against your running app, surfaces what's exploitable, and remediates inside the AI coding-agent loop (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot and more) before a PR opens. It suits engineering and AppSec teams shipping with AI agents, with the caveats that automated scanning and fixes still need security-expert oversight, and that its resolution figures are vendor-stated.
Very good
StackHawk earns 4.0 as a capable, well-targeted application-security platform for the AI-coding era. It runs real dynamic testing (DAST) against your running app and APIs to find what's genuinely exploitable, then closes the loop, the AI coding agent remediates and a rescan verifies, fitting inside tools like Claude Code, Cursor and Copilot so security runs where code is written, before a PR opens. As AI-written code proliferates, that's a genuinely modern and valuable approach, with broad coverage across API, MCP-server and LLM security. The caveat is that security still needs expertise: automated scanning and AI fixes are a force-multiplier, not a substitute, so a security engineer should review findings and confirm fixes actually resolve issues. Its resolution figures are vendor-stated and pricing wasn't in our read. For engineering and AppSec teams with the expertise to oversee it, it's a strong choice; teams without any security capacity should weigh it carefully. AInexfinder Editor Score: 4.0/5.
Best for: Application security testing; Securing AI-written code
The visit link goes to stackhawk.com, the official site. Paid placements on AInexfinder are always labelled. How we make money
AI coding agents ship code fast, and fast code can ship vulnerabilities. StackHawk's pitch is to secure that loop: test the running app, find what's exploitable, and fix it before the PR opens.
It runs modern DAST against your app and APIs, installs into AI coding agents like Claude Code and Cursor, and runs a find-fix-verify loop. It sits among coding tools like Semgrep, at the application-security end.
This review covers how StackHawk tests security, which teams it suits, how it's sold, and the experts-still-needed caveat to weigh first.
StackHawk's core job is dynamic application security testing (DAST): rather than just scanning source code, it tests your running application and APIs to find what's actually exploitable, then closes the loop, the AI coding agent remediates the issue in the codebase, and a rescan verifies the fix, aiming to secure code before the pull request even opens.
Its modern angle is fitting into the AI-coding-agent workflow: it installs as a skill into Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Antigravity and GitHub Copilot, so security runs inside the loop where AI is writing code. Its coverage spans modern DAST, API security, remote MCP-server testing, LLM security testing, sensitive-data detection, gRPC/GraphQL and business-logic testing.
It's aimed at developers and AppSec teams using AI coding agents, and leans on the pitch 'every other tool finds vulnerabilities; StackHawk fixes them'.
The honest framing is that StackHawk is a capable, well-targeted security platform, runtime DAST that finds truly exploitable issues (not just theoretical ones) and remediates them in the agent loop is a genuinely modern, valuable approach as AI-written code proliferates. The caveat is that security still needs expertise: automated scanning and AI-assisted fixes are powerful, but they don't replace security engineers, a scan can miss issues or surface false positives, and an AI-generated fix needs review to confirm it actually resolves the vulnerability without introducing another. So treat it as a force-multiplier for AppSec, not a substitute for it. Its figures (95% of vulnerabilities resolved before the PR, zero net-new exploitable vulnerabilities) are vendor-stated, and the pricing model wasn't in our read.
StackHawk runs real DAST on your running app and fixes issues inside the AI coding-agent loop, a genuinely modern approach; it's a force-multiplier for security experts, not a replacement, so review the AI-generated fixes.
StackHawk pairs runtime DAST with in-agent remediation and verification.
It scans your running app and APIs for exploitable issues, then verifies fixes with a rescan.
A reviewer like Greptile reviews pull-request code; StackHawk's angle is testing the running app and fixing issues in the agent loop, a runtime-security job.
It installs into Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot and more, running security inside the coding loop.
A scanner like Corgea focuses on finding and fixing code issues; StackHawk centres on DAST against the running app, so match it to whether you need runtime testing, and keep experts in the loop.
StackHawk suits engineering and AppSec teams that ship software, especially those using AI coding agents, and want security testing and remediation inside the development loop rather than as a late gate.
It suits teams that want runtime DAST (finding truly exploitable issues), API, MCP-server and LLM security testing, and the find-fix-verify workflow integrated with their coding agents.
It suits less well teams without any security expertise to oversee the results, those wanting a simple one-off scan, and anyone who'd treat automated fixes as guaranteed without review.
A fair way to place it: if you ship code (especially with AI agents) and have security expertise to oversee it, StackHawk is a capable, modern choice that catches exploitable issues early; if you have no one to review the findings and fixes, or want a quick scan, weigh it carefully, because automated security still needs a human who understands it. Run it on a real app, verify the find-fix-verify loop catches real issues and that the AI fixes genuinely resolve them, confirm the pricing, and keep a security engineer reviewing the output.
StackHawk shows 'get started' and a Pricing page, but the model and amounts weren't in our read. We do not publish prices; check the site and confirm the pricing model and what each plan includes.
The value question is vulnerabilities caught early versus cost: catching exploitable issues before a PR, rather than in production, can prevent costly incidents, justifying the platform for teams shipping meaningful software.
The sensible approach is to run it on a real app, judge whether the DAST finds genuinely exploitable issues and the AI remediation resolves them, confirm the pricing and integration with your agents, and keep security expertise overseeing it.
Because security needs expertise, run StackHawk on a real app with a security engineer reviewing.
| What it is | An application and API security (DAST) platform |
|---|---|
| Company | StackHawk Inc. (Colorado) |
| Core | Runtime DAST against a running app; find what's exploitable |
| Loop | Find (scan), Fix (agent remediates), Verify (rescan) |
| Fits | Installs into Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Copilot and more |
| Covers | API security, MCP-server testing, LLM security, business logic |
| Access | 'Get started' + Pricing (model not detailed in our read) |
| Sensitive | Security tool; automated scanning still needs expert oversight |
Runtime DAST
Find-fix-verify loop
Agent integrations
API security
MCP-server testing
LLM security testing
Business-logic testing
Rescan verification
The useful comparison is with other code-security tools.
| Tool | Tool | Approach | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| StackHawk | App security (DAST) | Test running app + fix | Engineering/AppSec |
| Greptile | AI code reviewer | PR review in context | Code review |
| Corgea | Security fix agent | Find + fix code issues | AppSec |
| Semgrep | Static analysis | Rule-based scanning | Code scanning |
Last checked . Read from stackhawk.com during this check, with the screenshot above captured at the same time.
StackHawk's automated scanning and AI-assisted fixes are powerful but don't replace security engineers: a scan can miss issues or surface false positives, and an AI-generated fix needs review to confirm it resolves the vulnerability without introducing another. Treat it as a force-multiplier for AppSec, not a substitute. Its figures (95% resolved before the PR, zero net-new exploitable vulnerabilities) are vendor-stated; pricing wasn't in our read.
An AI code reviewer, a security fix agent and a static analyser to weigh beside StackHawk.
AInexfinder does not list plan prices or billing details. For current pricing, plans, and trials, visit the official StackHawk website.
Visit official website for pricingVendor pricing, credits, and billing policies change over time. Always confirm on the official site before you buy.
StackHawk earns an AInexfinder Editor Score of 4.0/5 (very good). Best for: Application security testing; Securing AI-written code; API and LLM security.
Visit StackHawkLog in to write a review.
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience with StackHawk.
Assigned reviewer
Daniel ReedSenior AI Tools Reviewer
Daniel leads AInexfinder's tool reviews. He researches each tool from its own pricing, documentation and policies, checks its claims against independent sources, and writes up what it does well, where it falls short and who it genuinely suits.
Daniel and the AInexfinder editorial team research StackHawk from its own website, pricing, documentation and policies, checked against independent sources. This review is research-based: unless its method note says otherwise, we have not bought a plan or run hands-on tests. The Editor Score is our editorial judgement, and payment never changes it.
Similar Tools
Langfuse is an open-source LLM engineering platform covering tracing, evaluation, prompt management, experiments and human annotation. Every product feature is MIT licensed, with self-hosting via Docker Compose, Kubernetes or Terraform alongside a managed cloud in US and EU regions.
PromptLayer combines a prompt registry and visual CMS with dataset-backed evaluations, agent tracing and observability, letting non-engineers version and deploy prompts without a code release while every production trace stays linked to the exact version that produced it.
Momentic is an agentic end-to-end testing platform where AI writes tests as plain-English YAML, runs them across web, iOS and Android, and self-heals them when the UI changes, with an autonomous bug-bashing agent, an MCP server and CI integration.
Helicone is open-source LLM observability and an AI gateway. It logs and analyses requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Mistral, Groq, Together and OpenRouter, with sessions, user-level tracking, a query language, prompt management, datasets, a playground, rate limits and alerts.
Functionize is an AI-native test automation platform for enterprise web applications. Its Studio product uses autonomous agents to create and run end-to-end UI tests, with self-healing element resolution built on custom models rather than brittle selectors, across Salesforce, ServiceNow, Workday, SAP and bespoke apps.
Cursor is an AI-first code editor and agent platform from Anysphere — now a SpaceX subsidiary — that plans, writes, tests, and reviews code across your repository from the desktop editor, a CLI, the web, and Slack.
Related Pages