How We Compare
Zero-day detection and continuous monitoring: Fusionstek vs. traditional CVE-based and agent-based approaches.
Zero-Day Detection: Key Metrics
Analytical comparison for security and cost decisions
| Metric | Traditional vendors | Fusionstek | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean time to detection | 7–14 days (post-CVE) | 24–48 hours (pre-CVE) | 3–7 days faster |
| False positive rate | 60–80% | <5% | 55–75% reduction |
| Threat coverage | CVE feeds only | GitHub + Exploit-DB + CVE | 3× coverage |
| Version accuracy | ~40% (name-only) | 95% (semantic) | 55% improvement |
| Infrastructure overhead | 5–15% CPU (agents) | 0% (passive) | 100% reduction |
| Scan cost (continuous monitoring) | Hourly/daily scans | 1 baseline / 30+ days | ~99% scan cost reduction |
| Alert prioritization | Binary (affected / not) | Weighted 0.0–1.0 | Actionable scoring |
Why It Matters
Outcomes that security and compliance teams care about
Earlier visibility
Detect and patch before CVE publication—reduce exposure window by 50–70%.
Less noise
Asset-specific correlation means alerts only for technologies you actually run.
No extra tooling
No agents, no performance impact—works from your existing EASM baseline.
See the Full Platform
Zero-day detection is part of our complete EASM and assurance platform.
Book a Demo