RunSybil vs Tines
A detailed comparison to help you choose between RunSybil and Tines.
🏆
Verdict: Tines wins
Tines scores 4.5/5, edging out RunSybil at 3.6/5. Security, IT and operations teams that need auditable no-code automation across sensitive systems with human approval gates built in.
RunSybil AI-powered automated penetration testing for cybersecurity | Tines Workflow automation platform for security and operations teams | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 3.6 (1 review) | 4.5 (1 review) |
| Pricing Model | paid | freemium |
| Starting Price | From $99/mo | Free tier available |
| Best For | Security-serious engineering teams that run pentests on a cadence, want exploit-proven findings against live web apps and APIs without scheduling human testers, and have their own engineers to apply fixes. | Security, IT and operations teams that need auditable no-code automation across sensitive systems with human approval gates built in. |
| Free Tier | ||
| API Access | ||
| Team Features | ||
| Open Source | ||
| Tags | api access | free tierteam featuresapi access |
| Visit RunSybil → | Visit Tines → |
RunSybil
Pros
- + Findings are reproduced before delivery with CWE IDs, CVSS scores, request/response evidence, and reproduction steps — validation-first reporting is the product's strongest habit
- + Retest loop works as advertised: apply the fix, re-run, and get a verdict on that finding in under an hour instead of re-booking a human test weeks out
- + Remediation prompts written for autonomous coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor) closed the gap between finding and fix faster than any report PDF I have handled
- + Black-box default with chaining across auth flows and business logic catches real exploit paths that scanners and BAS tools miss by construction
- + Exceptional founding team (OpenAI's first security hire, ex-Meta red team lead) and $40M from Khosla Ventures with named customers including Cursor, Notion, and Baseten
Cons
- - No published pricing and no self-service signup — evaluation requires a demo and a quote, and competitor analyses call continuous coverage expensive over time
- - Remediation is handed off, not automated: it writes the prompt but does not open pull requests or fix cloud misconfigurations itself
- - My walkthrough stayed on the web/API attack surface — no SAST, dependency scanning, secret detection, or cloud posture, despite broader 'entire stack' homepage claims
- - No signed attestation letter or STRIDE threat model per competitor comparisons (vendor-disputed sources), which weakens the compliance use case
- - Short independent track record: founded 2023, and the claims about coverage breadth outrun what I could verify in the product
Tines
Pros
- + Security-native design: credential isolation, immutable audit logs, SSO on the free tier and first-class approval gates — I verified approvals work as a primitive, not a webhook hack
- + A real phishing-response workflow (enrich, branch, Slack approval, ticket write-back) went live on the canvas in under an hour in my testing
- + G2 satisfaction is exceptional for the category: 4.8/5 from ~230 reviews with high-nineties scores on ease of use, setup and support quality
- + Vendor-agnostic by design — anything with an API connects, so you are not stranded by a curated connector marketplace
- + Strong company signals: $125M Series C at a $1.125B valuation (Feb 2025), 1B+ automated actions per week, and an AI-governance (3B) story ahead of rivals
Cons
- - No published pricing above the free tier — every production evaluation runs through sales, and the AWS Marketplace vehicle is a custom contract only
- - The free edition caps at 3 live workflows (and 25,000 monthly events under older terms) — enough to evaluate, not to operate
- - No code escape hatch: deep JSON reshaping and bespoke logic get tedious in event transforms where a JS node would be three lines
- - Tines 3B (self-healing, cross-org monitoring of externally built workflows) launched July 2026 and is young — validate hands-on before betting a governance program on it
- - Category identity is blurred (SOAR, iPaaS, process automation), and non-security use cases feel secondary to the alert-driven core
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is better, RunSybil or Tines?▼
Tines scores higher at 4.5/5 vs 3.6/5 for RunSybil, making it the better-rated option in our comparison.
What is the difference between RunSybil and Tines?▼
RunSybil: RunSybil runs autonomous offensive security testing against applications, finding exploitable vulnerabilities and filtering out false positives. Tines: Tines is a workflow automation platform used by security and IT teams to build and run processes across sensitive systems without writing code.
Is RunSybil or Tines more affordable?▼
RunSybil starts at €99/mo, Tines starts at €0/mo. Check the comparison table above for current pricing.
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new AI tools, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.