What changes with Rekon's agents?

Coverage per specialist hour. Agents sweep surface, propose paths and draft PoCs; the specialist spends their time validating, exploiting and signing. Same window, more ground covered — and nothing runs without human authorization.

Who is accountable for the result?

The person who signs the report. Agents do not sign: they propose and accelerate. Every intrusive action passes a logged human gate, and the report carries the name of whoever supervised the test. Named accountability, not diffuse.

When is Rekon the wrong choice?

If your compliance demands a Big Four logo on the report, we are not the provider. If you need an audit certificate more than reproducible findings, the model will fail you too. And if nobody on your side will remediate, no provider helps.

← Learn

Comparison

Rekon vs traditional pentest

An honest comparison between Rekon's hybrid model (agents + human gate) and the traditional consultancy: cadence, evidence, accountability and coordination costs.

Rekon — hybrid offensive security · 2026-09-17

This is the comparison we run against ourselves, using public facts about the traditional model. We do not name competitors: we name method differences. If the traditional model solves your problem, use it — this page exists so you decide with criteria, not with a brochure.

The real differences

Criterion	Traditional consultancy	Rekon
Attack engine	Analysts + manual tooling	Agents + specialists, with a human gate
Evidence	Screenshots and descriptions	Reproducible PoC + ATT&CK mapping per finding
Negative controls	Rarely documented	Declared in the report
Authorization	Generic ROE	Written ROE + human gate per intrusive action
Signature	Firm brand	Name of the supervising person
Language	English, translated	Native ES, natively written EN

What we do NOT change

The delivery window is fixed in the contract, not on the web — same as any serious provider. Price is quoted per scope. And we do not publish engagement metrics: if a provider shows finding counters on their home page, ask whose numbers those are. The full model explained: AI-assisted pentesting and what a pentest report is. If the method fits, we propose scope — not a brochure.

Straight answers

What changes with Rekon's agents?: Coverage per specialist hour. Agents sweep surface, propose paths and draft PoCs; the specialist spends their time validating, exploiting and signing. Same window, more ground covered — and nothing runs without human authorization.
Who is accountable for the result?: The person who signs the report. Agents do not sign: they propose and accelerate. Every intrusive action passes a logged human gate, and the report carries the name of whoever supervised the test. Named accountability, not diffuse.
When is Rekon the wrong choice?: If your compliance demands a Big Four logo on the report, we are not the provider. If you need an audit certificate more than reproducible findings, the model will fail you too. And if nobody on your side will remediate, no provider helps.

Time to test your doors?

Tell us what needs validating. We answer with proposed scope, not a brochure.

Talk to Rekon More in Learn