Comparison
LyraShield AI vs Aikido
How LyraShield AI compares to Aikido for developer-centric CI/CD security. Approach, evidence states, coverage framework and deployment model differences.
Last reviewed:
Where we differ
- A launch verdict in three states: ready, not ready or insufficient evidence.
- Every finding keeps its evidence state, and a fresh retest confirms a fix.
- Fix proposals wait for a human approval before any pull request opens.
Swipe comparison tables horizontally to read every column.
Core approach
| Aspect | LyraShield AI | Aikido |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Evidence-backed release assurance for AI-built apps | Unified AppSec platform: code, cloud, runtime in one system |
| Scanning approach | Agentic engine with coverage framework and evidence states; AI-pattern focus | Multi-engine (SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC, containers, CSPM, DAST) + AI pentest agents |
| Finding lifecycle | Detected → retest-confirmed or inconclusive | Open → triaged (AutoT deprioritizes non-risk) → AutoFix PR or ticket |
| Control framework | Vibe Security 50 (43 code/URL review + 7 evidence-required) | No published control framework; rule engine + context-based prioritization |
| AI-generated code focus | Built for AI-built apps; scans agent rules, agent instruction files and AI patterns | AI Code Quality review + malware detection; not AI-code-specific assurance |
| Fix model | Recorded fix proposals; Fix PRs open only after a human approves, with a server-generated patch | AutoFix generates reviewable PRs across code, deps, IaC, containers |
Capability comparison
| Capability | LyraShield AI | Aikido |
|---|---|---|
| Static analysis (SAST) | Agentic plus a deterministic pattern scanner | Yes (pattern + context) |
| SCA (dependency scanning) | Yes (engine) | Yes (with malware detection) |
| Secret scanning | Yes (engine + GitHub Action) | Yes |
| IaC / container scanning | Deterministic Terraform, Kubernetes, Compose and Dockerfile checks; no container image scanner | Yes |
| Cloud posture (CSPM) | Not a primary focus | Yes |
| DAST / surface monitoring | Via agentic pentest | Yes (surface monitoring) |
| AI / agentic pentest | Yes | Yes (200+ agents; continuous autonomous pentesting) |
| Evidence states (DETECTED / VALIDATED / INCONCLUSIVE) | Yes; VERIFIED is future-only and not produced today |
No documented equivalent (AutoTriage prioritization instead) |
| Deterministic retest | Yes | Re-test after fix (continuous testing) |
| Coverage receipts | Yes (per-control) | No documented equivalent |
| Assurance reports (checksum-bound) | Yes | Audit-grade pentest reports |
| MCP server integration | Yes (runs checks and records evidence inside AI coding agents) | Yes (Aikido MCP plugin for Cursor and Claude Code and others) |
| Permission-gated Fix PR requests | Fix PR requests require permission and a server-generated patch | AutoFix PRs (reviewable, not permission-gated Fix PR requests) |
| Runtime protection | Not in v1 | Yes (in-app firewall, bot/device protection) |
Deployment and pricing
| Aspect | LyraShield AI | Aikido |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Hosted + CLI + MCP + GitHub Action | SaaS + IDE + CI integrations; broker for internal apps; local code scanning option |
| Pricing | See pricing for current plan details | Check the vendor’s current pricing or sales quote |
| Compliance posture | Assurance-record orientation for release sign-off | SOC 2 Type II + ISO 27001:2022 attested |
When to use which
Use LyraShield AI when
- Your app is AI-built and you need AI-specific pattern coverage and an assurance record for the release
- You need checksum-bound assurance reports with coverage receipts for compliance or client handoff
- You want reviewable fix proposals and a separate permission gate for Fix PR requests
- You want security checks inside your AI coding agent via MCP
- You want a focused release-assurance loop, not a broad AppSec stack
Use Aikido when
- You want one platform spanning code, cloud and runtime (SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC, containers, CSPM, DAST, runtime)
- You want auto-generated fix PRs across code, dependencies, IaC and containers
- You need runtime protection (in-app firewall, bot/device protection) alongside scanning
- You want a transparent, published pricing ladder with a free tier
- You want a rightsized or continuous AI pentest bolted onto a broader AppSec platform
Aikido is the broad AppSec platform; LyraShield AI is the release-assurance loop for AI-built apps. Read our comparison methodology and try the free browser-local tools at lyrashieldai.com.
Where Aikido is genuinely strong
Its breadth is the headline. A single platform covers repository scanning, cloud configuration, containers and domains. Its SCA page says it correlates findings across stages to avoid duplicate alerts and traces whether your code actually reaches a vulnerable dependency. The same page describes pre-CVE intelligence and detection of known malicious packages across npm, PyPI, GitHub Actions and Maven.
Aikido has strong developer workflow integration. Its SAST page shows vulnerabilities flagged inline in the editor, offers one-click AutoFix that opens a pull request and supports custom rules for codebase-specific risks. Its SBOM page describes one-click CycloneDX, SPDX or CSV export.
Aikido also ships an MCP plugin that connects its security engine to AI coding tools and scans AI-generated code for vulnerabilities and hardcoded secrets as it is created. That is a direct overlap with part of what LyraShield does and it is worth stating plainly.
Sources
- Aikido platform overview
- Aikido SAST product page
- Aikido SCA product page
- Aikido SBOM export
- Aikido MCP plugin documentation
Methodology and scope
This comparison describes published capabilities, not an independent test of either product. Client workflow availability and commercial terms can change. Read how LyraShield tests, records evidence and reports coverage for its assurance model and verify vendor details before a purchasing decision.
LyraShield pricing
Trial: 60 one-time agent-minutes; Starter $29/month; Pro $99/month; Agency $499/month; Enterprise from $1,500/month.
View pricing and plan limitsFrequently asked questions
- Does LyraShield replace Aikido?
- No. Aikido is a unified code to cloud to runtime platform covering SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC, containers, CSPM, DAST, AI pentesting and runtime protection, with AutoFix PRs and a free forever tier. LyraShield in open beta is not a broad AppSec stack; it is a focused loop for AI-built apps with reviewed fix proposals and a checksum-bound assurance record.
- Can I use Aikido and LyraShield together?
- Yes. Use Aikido for broad, continuous scanning and runtime protection across your estate and add LyraShield for the release assurance run before you ship AI-built apps. Both support GitHub integrations, so findings can coexist. Aikido publishes its plan pricing on its pricing page; LyraShield pricing is live at lyrashieldai.com/pricing.
- When should I choose Aikido over LyraShield?
- Choose Aikido when you want one platform for code, cloud and runtime, with auto-generated fix PRs, malware detection in dependencies and published pricing including a free tier. Its 200+ AI agents for continuous pentesting are a genuine strength for coverage. Choose LyraShield when you need explicit approval gates and a checksum-bound evidence record for release decisions.
- How do their fix models differ?
- Aikido AutoFix generates reviewable fix PRs across code, dependencies, IaC and containers. LyraShield records fix proposals for review; a Fix PR request requires permission and a server-generated patch, while repository review and merge controls remain separate. A fresh retest records the outcome.
What happens next
Run the free Lite Check on your own app, then start a trial to review the repository behind it.