Pentest vs. Vulnerability Scan
A vulnerability scan delivers fast breadth, a pentest delivers depth and reliable evidence. The right choice depends on whether you need risk evidence or a baseline inventory first.
From practice: Many organizations start with scans, but later realize they need real exploit evidence for audits or customers. Conversely, a pentest without a prior scan baseline is often inefficient.
Quick comparison
Goal
Scan: Vulnerability inventory (What’s there?)
Pentest: Exploitability + impact (What actually happens?)
Method
Scan: Automated, signature-based
Pentest: Manual, context-driven, creative
Output
Scan: List + CVSS scores
Pentest: PoCs, attack paths, executive summary
Usage
Scan: Continuous, regular
Pentest: Before go-live, audits, after changes
Fits / Does not fit
Vulnerability scan fits if …
- You need a first overview of your attack surface
- You regularly create baselines for large environments
- You want to quickly identify known CVEs
- Budget or time for deep testing is limited
Pentest fits if …
- You need evidence for audits or customers
- You want to know what an attacker can actually achieve
- You need to test business logic or complex workflows
- You’re before go-live or after architecture changes
Scan is not enough if …
- You need exploit evidence or PoCs
- Business logic flaws are relevant
- External auditors require real tests
Pentest is not enough if …
- You need continuous visibility
- You have to check hundreds of systems regularly
- You don’t have a baseline yet
Detailed comparison
| Aspect | Vulnerability Scan | Pentest |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Inventory of known vulnerabilities | Proof of real exploitability |
| Method | Automated, signature-based | Manual, creative, context-driven |
| Coverage | Broad (many systems) | Deep (few systems) |
| Output | CVE list, CVSS scores | PoCs, attack paths, prioritization |
| Frequency | Weekly to monthly | Annually or on changes |
| Cost | Low to medium | Medium to high |
| False positives | Frequent | Rare (manually validated) |
| Business logic | Not covered | Explicitly tested |
Common pitfalls (from practice)
- Getting a scan sold as a pentest (common with cheap offers)
- Ordering a pentest without a prior scan baseline (inefficient)
- Running only scans but lacking exploit evidence for audits
- Blindly trusting CVSS scores without context assessment
- Not tracking or prioritizing scan results
Practice tip
Combine both: Regular scans for breadth, targeted pentests for depth. Scans provide the baseline, pentests validate critical systems.
What you get
Vulnerability scan delivers
- List of detected vulnerabilities (CVEs)
- CVSS scores and severity ratings
- Asset inventory with open ports/services
- Trend reports with regular execution
Pentest delivers
- Executive summary (risk, impact, priority)
- Technical findings with PoCs and reproduction
- Attack paths and exploit chains
- Concrete recommendations per finding
What neither provides
Does not replace secure architecture
Does not replace continuous monitoring
Does not provide absolute security
Does not work without asset inventory
Decision check
- Do I need evidence (impact, PoCs) or is an inventory enough?
- Are there critical systems that need realistic testing?
- Do customers or auditors require explicit pentest reports?
- Do I already have a scan baseline or am I starting from zero?
- Is scope and objective clearly defined?
Decision guide
Scan first: If you don’t have an overview yet or need to cover many systems.
Pentest first: If you’re facing an audit or have critical systems with sensitive data.
Next steps
- Define goal: Inventory or evidence?
- Set scope: Which systems, what depth?
- Check baseline: Do scan results already exist?
- Clarify requirements: What do customers/auditors require?
Next step with us
Briefly describe your situation. We help with classification and selecting the right approach. Note: We advise on selection, but do not conduct tests ourselves.
Submit request