When Comparison Becomes Marketing Theater: A Quick Reality Check on DefectDojo’s “Analysis” of Hackuity

Our friends at DefectDojo recently published a comparison piece positioning their platform against Hackuity.
‍
The article is here: DefectDojo Pro vs Hackuity in 2026: The Risk Cockpit vs. The Security OS

First, credit where it’s due: writing comparison content is hard. It takes time, effort, and a willingness to step into uncomfortable territory. We genuinely appreciate it, if only because this kind of content tends to appear when something in the market is shifting. Rapid customer replacement, international expansion, and increased visibility tend to… trigger reactions.

And that’s fine. Disruption usually does.

Because that’s the real point: Hackuity isn’t just another “vulnerability management tool.” The goal has always been to move beyond fragmented, inefficient processes and into something operationally coherent, what we call VulnOps.

Now, let’s address a few highlights from the article.
‍

“Hackuity’s primary selling point is the True Risk Score (TRS)”

❌ WRONG
‍
This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Hackuity’s core is not a score, it’s operations. More precisely, end-to-end vulnerability operations. The TRS is a powerful component for risk evaluation, yes, but it’s just one piece in a broader system designed to industrialize how vulnerabilities are processed.

Reducing Hackuity to a score is like describing an aircraft by its altimeter.

“For a CISO looking for a risk number to present to the board, Hackuity is a powerful analytics tool.”

✅ TRUE

And that’s precisely why CISOs stop exporting CSVs into Excel or rebuilding dashboards in BI tools.

Reporting becomes native, continuous and contextual. No glue, no manual stitching, no “data reconciliation Fridays.”

“The True Risk Score is a black box creating dependency on a vendor’s secret sauce”

❌ WRONG

Everything is documented. Transparent. Accessible.

The confusion likely comes from effectiveness. When something consistently produces accurate prioritization, people sometimes assume opacity; or worse, “magic.”

There’s no magic here. Just nearly a decade of engineering, modeling, and iteration.

More importantly: customers are not locked in. They can:
- Use TRSIgnore TRS
- Build their own prioritization logic
- Inject their own scoring models
‍
Try doing that in most platforms without rewriting half the product.

“Hackuity boasts around 80+ connectors”

❌ WRONG (and outdated)

It’s over 120, deployable in minutes without code or tuning.

We understand it’s hard to keep up. Hackuity moves quickly.

Also worth noting: we don’t offload integration work onto customers. If a connector is needed, we build it and at no extra cost. Because integration friction is wasted time, and wasted time is the enemy of operations.

And terminology matters: We call them connectors, not parsers, because the people using them are running security programs, not writing compilers.

For everything else, Hackuity universal connectors handle custom ingestion cleanly and efficiently.

“Hackuity is a top-down dashboard with a cockpit view”