# XBOW vs Horizon3 NodeZero

Source: https://pentestcompare.com/compare/xbow-vs-horizon3/
Publisher: Excession Labs (pentestcompare.com)
Last updated: 2026-11-09

XBOW vs Horizon3 NodeZero compared: an autonomous web and API agent vs a network-first platform with a web module. Prices, units and sources checked 9 Nov 2026.

> **Short answer:** XBOW and Horizon3's NodeZero are both autonomous, but they cover different ground. XBOW tests web applications and APIs with AI agents and publishes no price. NodeZero focuses on internal, external, cloud and Active Directory testing, adds a web application module, and prices per asset. This page compares them on vendor pages checked 9 November 2026.

XBOW and Horizon3's NodeZero are different categories of product. XBOW is an autonomous agent platform for web applications and APIs. NodeZero is an autonomous pentesting platform whose main focus is internal, external, cloud, Kubernetes and Active Directory testing, with a web application module added to it. They share the word "autonomous", so buyers meet them in the same searches. A buyer comparing them is usually comparing different jobs. Both are in the [provider dataset](/providers/); this page uses vendor pages checked on 9 November 2026.

## How do XBOW and NodeZero compare at a glance?

| Field | XBOW | Horizon3.ai (NodeZero) |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | Autonomous AI agents; the page says no human drives the attack and findings are reviewed before delivery (reviewer not stated) | Software that runs the attacks; no human pentesters described |
| Scope named | Web applications and APIs | Internal, external, cloud (AWS, Azure), Kubernetes, Active Directory; web applications via WebApp module; mobile not named |
| Pricing model | Usage-based, scoped to your environment | Published list prices |
| Published prices and units | None; no unit | Flex $15 per asset per test (12-month term). Core $50, Pro $65, Elite $85 per asset, annual subscription, unlimited testing. WebApp Flex $10,000 per app per test (12-month term). WebApp Continuous: custom, per app |
| Turnaround claim | First validated findings in hours; continuous or on demand | No time stated; WebApp page says tests can be set up quickly and run as often as needed |
| What turnaround measures | Time to first findings, not a full report | Not stated |
| Retest terms | Homepage: free and unlimited re-tests after a fix | Fix actions with one-click verify. Core, Pro, Elite: unlimited testing, so no extra charge. Flex: page does not say if a verify is billed as a new test |
| Sample report | Not published | Not published |
| Credentials with evidence | None found | None found |
| Integrations | CI/CD API | MCP Server |

Sources: [XBOW homepage](https://xbow.com/), [XBOW pricing](https://xbow.com/pricing), [NodeZero pricing](https://horizon3.ai/use-case/pricing/), [NodeZero WebApp](https://horizon3.ai/nodezero/webapp/), all checked 9 November 2026. XBOW's page lists SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, PCI DSS and NIS 2 without saying whether XBOW holds them. Horizon3's page mentions PCI DSS and NIS 2 as use cases. We list neither as credentials.

## Why are these different categories?

XBOW states its job as testing "your applications and APIs", with many agents working in parallel and exploits used to validate each finding. The buyer sets scope, impact level and testing window, and a command checker blocks destructive actions, per its homepage.

NodeZero started as a network and infrastructure tool. Its WebApp page describes a module of the broader platform, next to internal, external, cloud and Kubernetes testing. The workflow it describes is crawl with a headless browser, authenticate, attack, prove and repeat, and reports link web weaknesses to attack chains that reach identity and infrastructure. The page does not explain how the two parts integrate technically.

The sentence that matters for buying: XBOW is built for application-layer coverage across a portfolio of apps, and NodeZero is built for the attack path across an environment. If you only own web apps, both may apply. If you own servers, cloud accounts and Active Directory, only NodeZero's pages describe that work.

## Choose XBOW if

- Your assets are web applications and APIs, and you have many of them. The homepage says scope can range from a single application to thousands.
- You want to set scope, rate limits, protected URLs and testing windows yourself and pause at any time.
- You want free and unlimited re-tests as stated on the homepage. The pricing page does not mention retests, so ask for it in writing.
- You accept that the price comes only from a quote, and that the page does not name a billing unit.

## Choose Horizon3 NodeZero if

- You need internal, external, cloud, Kubernetes or Active Directory testing, or want application testing in the same platform.
- You prefer a published price list. You can estimate a budget once you count your assets.
- You want to run tests often. Core, Pro and Elite are priced as unlimited testing per asset for 12 months.
- You can accept that the unit is a discovered asset (a server, workstation, network device, cloud resource or internet-facing service), which you may not know in advance. The page says a machine found under several names counts as one asset.

## What differences matter most?

The price units cannot be compared. A per-asset price ($15 to $85) and a per-app price ($10,000 for WebApp Flex) measure different things, and XBOW publishes neither. Without an XBOW figure, no cost ranking is possible from public pages.

Support tiers add cost at Horizon3: Enhanced is 10% of the subscription with a $7,500 yearly minimum, and Premier is 20% with a $25,000 yearly minimum, per the NodeZero pricing page.

Human involvement is thin in both. XBOW says findings are reviewed before you see them and does not say by whom. Horizon3's WebApp page describes practitioners reviewing the evidence and says MFA login may pause for a person. Neither offers a signed report from a named tester on the pages checked. If an auditor needs that, see the [AI vs human pentesting guide](/guides/ai-vs-human-pentesting/).

Neither publishes a sample report, so you judge the output only in a trial or demo. Horizon3's WebApp page reports fewer than 10% false positives across about 380 vulnerabilities in early testing. That is a vendor claim on one test set.

Get a trial scope in writing from both vendors, with the same target, and compare what each report proves. The [automated pentesting tools guide](/guides/automated-pentesting-tools/) explains where automated tools stop. For other options, see [XBOW alternatives](/compare/xbow-alternatives/).

Found an error? [Send a correction](/methodology/#corrections).

## Questions

### Can I replace one with the other?

Only partly. XBOW's pages describe web applications and APIs. NodeZero's pages describe internal, external, cloud and Kubernetes testing, plus a web application module sold per app. If you need both network and application coverage, check each vendor's current scope in writing.

### Which one lets me estimate a budget?

NodeZero, once you count assets. It lists $15 per asset per test, $50 to $85 per asset per year, and $10,000 per app per test for WebApp Flex. XBOW publishes no amount or unit. Neither figure gives a total without your asset or app count.

### Does either vendor publish a false positive rate?

Horizon3's WebApp page says fewer than 10% false positives across about 380 vulnerabilities in early testing, compared against a skilled manual pentester. That is a vendor claim on one test set. XBOW's pages checked give no false positive figure.

## Sources

- [XBOW homepage](https://xbow.com/)
- [XBOW pricing](https://xbow.com/pricing)
- [NodeZero pricing](https://horizon3.ai/use-case/pricing/)
- [NodeZero WebApp](https://horizon3.ai/nodezero/webapp/)
- [Horizon3.ai homepage](https://www.horizon3.ai/)