Top Automated Pentesting Tools (2025)
Software development ships faster than ever, especially with AI-assisted coding. Many companies now push updates every day/ week.
Traditional pentests can’t keep up. They usually take 2-4 weeks, cost $15k-$30k, and only provide a point-in-time snapshot. By the time the report arrives, the application may already have changed.
That’s why teams are turning to automated pentesting tools, especially AI/agentic approaches. These platforms handle repetitive attack work, scale across APIs and modern web apps, and adapt as software evolves, continuously re-testing applications and workflows as new code ships.
But here is also true: there’s still skepticism. A practitioner on Reddit said:
That was true for older scanners. But modern automated pentesting tools go further. Instead of just crawling endpoints, they model application states and transitions, following multi-step user journeys, handling complex authentication, and surfacing business logic vulnerabilities like privilege escalation or workflow abuse that previously required manual effort.
This article reviews the 10 best automated pentesting tools in 2025, with their strengths, limitations, and fit, so security teams can decide which solution makes the most sense for their needs.
What Automated Pentesting Means Today
Many still assume automated pentesting can’t replace traditional approaches. That was true for older scanners. Legacy scanners could flag missing headers, but they struggled with business logic vulnerabilities that previously wouldn’t have been discovered without human effort.
That’s also what we hear as well when we talk with security engineers from offensive backgrounds - they often point out that scanners miss business logic flaws in their organization’s complex applications. With the advancements in the AI-powered algorithms, this problem is now being solved, and that’s exactly where modern platforms stand out.
Modern automated pentesting platforms replace the detection of vulnerabilities that previously required a human in the loop.. These include BOLA, IDOR, privilege escalation, and workflow bypasses.
The impact is in the results. Work that once took days or weeks is now automated, producing not only evidence-backed findings but also remediation code snippets within a couple of hours. When an automated pentesting solution integrates with asset discovery, it becomes easier to prioritize what truly needs fixing—identifying what's exploitable and how an attacker could exploit it (and who owns what needs to be fixed) - so you can take immediate action on what matters most.
Reality in 2025
Automated pentesting has matured beyond speed.
- It mirrors how users actually interact with applications, persisting through MFA, tokens, and dynamic states.
- It uncovers the complex business logic vulnerabilities: broken access control, BOLA, and IDORs.
- Work that once took weeks is now automated, producing evidence-backed results in hours.
Paired with Attack Surface Management, results aren’t isolated findings - they’re tied to assets, owners, and business context, turning raw vulnerabilities into actionable priorities.
Why This Matters
For Security teams, the impact is tangible:
- Signal over noise - True positives with clear exploit evidence replace endless low-value alerts.
- Complete coverage - from SQL injections to complex business logic flaws
- Pace of development - When applications change every sprint, automation ensures vulnerabilities are caught as they’re introduced, not months later.
- Cost efficiency - By replacing repetitive manual pentests, teams cut weeks of external engagements and thousands in testing fees, while getting results continuously instead of a few times a year.
How to Evaluate Automated Pentesting Tools in 2025
Here’s what to look into the modern automated pentesting tools
1. Complete coverage to actually replace the human-in-the-loop
- Detection of Business Logic Vulnerabilities. The baseline is whether the platform can consistently detect BOLA, IDOR, privilege escalation, and workflow bypasses the flaws, so you actually can reduce the time of manual pentesting without losing value.
- Ability to interact with a modern application stack. Any modern tool must handle today’s complex stacks, from APIs to SPAs, modeling real user states and multi-step flows.,
- Coverage of modern web app architectures: tools should be able to model multi-step flows, user states, and role changes
- Authentication resilience: A lot of modern applications sit behind MFA, SSO, and rotating tokens. A platform should persist across these automatically, not collapse when a new tab is opened or when another user logs in.
“As security folks, we'll probably stop focusing on the foundational issues. And we'd be looking at much more difficult issues that our tooling has a hard time to find. Like business logic issues… “ - Jeevan Singh, Director of Security at Rippling (on The Elephant in AppSec Podcast)
2. Signal security engineers can act on
- Provable exploit paths. Findings should include replayable steps, request/response traces, or exploit chains, so you are sure you’re sending the true findings to developers.
- Actionable remediation: You are not only left with vulnerabilities to fix but right tools also provide you and your developers with actionable code snippets on how to fix them
- Validated results. The best tools surface minimum false positives and help you triage critical, exploitable issues
3. Built for the speed of change
- Change-triggered testing: You don’t need to wait for your pentesters to come in 3 times a year or block the release for days till it’s sure it’s safe. Automated pentesting tools re-run the moment an endpoint or a web app is updated, keeping coverage aligned with the application deployed in production.
- Attack Surface to decisions: Findings are often just a part of the picture. To make them aligned with real-world risks and reduce your time to fix, they must map directly to assets, owners, and criticality, so teams know who owns the fix, how urgent it is, and what to prioritize first.
- Advanced reporting in a fraction of the time: Your pentesters usually produce in-depth audit-ready reporting. If you’re replacing manual efforts with the tool, it should provide you with equal quality of the reporing results tailored for each compliance framework in a single click.
Top 10 Automated Pentesting Tools (2025)
Here’s a look at the leading automated pentesting tools shaping 2025:
Escape
Overview
Escape provides Agentic DAST, specializing in the detection of business logic flaws and other complex vulnerabilities that traditional scanners often miss. Its approach extends from code to cloud, covering APIs, SPAs, and distributed application environments.
The platform’s AI-driven engine models real application behavior across roles, sessions, and states, enabling the discovery of issues like BOLA, IDOR, and access control. Findings are delivered with in-depth exploit paths, framework-tailored code snippets, and link to its owners and assets, supporting faster developer remediation of critical applications.
Escape is particularly suited for security and AppSec teams aiming to replace manual pentesting and scaling vulnerability detection, while maintaining high accuracy even for complex business logic findings and actionable results.
Strengths
✅ Purpose-built for detecting business logic vulnerabilities: Escape’s proprietary engine identifies deep logic flaws such as IDORs, SSRFs, and broken access controls that require real interaction to uncover.
✅ True positives with evidence: Each issue includes full request–response traces or replayable steps, so engineers can follow the exploit path directly and validate it with confidence.
✅ Attack Surface Management integration: Vulnerabilities are linked to assets discovered across code repositories and cloud integrations, tied to their owners, and weighted by business criticality.
✅ CI/CD-ready custom tests: Teams can define security rules that evolve with their APIs and run them automatically in CI/CD pipelines without manual upkeep (see Escape Rules).
✅ Developer-ready remediation: Escape generates stack-specific code fixes. Whether for Node.js APIs or GraphQL services, developers receive context and patches tailored to their framework, reducing backlog and friction between security and engineering.
✅ GraphQL-native security testing: The platform is also purpose-built for GraphQL, sending context-aware queries that reflect real application logic.
Limitations
❌ Advanced features may require security expertise or training for optimal use.
🟡 Scope is focused on testing APIs, Web Apps, Hosts, and Ports
❌ Integration coverage for some operational tools is still being expanded.
Testing Approach
Escape’s engine is rooted in its proprietary Business Logic Security Testing algorithm and uses reinforcement learning with generative AI to adapt requests in real time. The result: a stateful, event-driven exploration engine that doesn’t just ping endpoints, it simulates users interacting with the application, surfacing flaws where real attackers would.
Org Fit
Mid-to-large enterprises: built for lean security teams deploying updates weekly or daily, and especially well-suited for organizations with complex environments—such as domains and subdomains scattered across multiple teams, applications hosted in various locations and repositories (including monorepos)—where blind spots are hard to detect without context.
Reviews
“We’ve reduced time spent on pentests from 4–5 days to under half a day.” - Head of Offensive Security, large logistics company
"We saw Escape being a lot smarter, understanding what’s happening, where it is located. For example, it’s finding a billing API, it’s found what it thinks is a billing ID, like 001, and it tries a few other IDs to see if it has access to get some other people’s billing info. It’s a lot more understanding of what’s happening where it’s at. I think this is where tooling and security tooling overall is going.” - Nick Semyonov, PandaDoc
XBOW
Overview
XBOW is an AI-powered penetration testing platform that frames itself as a “human-level security tester at machine speed.” Instead of relying on a single scanner, XBOW coordinates hundreds of autonomous AI agents, each focused on a specific attack vector. These agents collaborate to discover vulnerabilities, attempt exploit paths, and validate them with proof-of-concept payloads. The platform emphasizes adversarial realism, aiming to replicate how hackers would approach an application but at a scale and speed no manual team could match. Its positioning is strongest in red-team style scenarios: testing breadth, chaining potential, and rapid validation of impactful exploits.
Strengths
✅ Adversarial realism: Specialized agents run in parallel, chaining attacks, iterating on exploitation paths, and trying to validate them.
✅ Quick launch: Updates can be tested within hours, bypassing the scheduling delays of manual engagements.
✅ Validated exploits: Proof-of-concept evidence is included for vulnerabilities, supporting credibility in findings.
Limitations
❌ Business logic blind spot: Less systematic detection of Business Logic Vulnerabilities (BOLA, IDOR, access control) compared to purpose-built engines.
❌ Context missing: Findings are raw; results aren’t tied into ASM context like asset ownership or prioritization.
❌ Pricing: Priced per action, which makes costs rise quite high for organizations that need to test often.
❌ Developer handoff gap: While exploits are validated, reports don’t provide developer-ready fixes
❌ Engineering adoption: Offensive-first framing resonates with pentesters, but less so with product and developer teams seeking integration into workflows.
Testing Approach
Multi-agent, adversarial exploration with coordinated exploit chaining. Strong for simulating attacker breadth; weaker for systematic, evidence-driven detection.
Org Size Fit
- Organizations with dedicated security or red teams that want adversarial testing without testing too often
- Less optimized for engineering-led orgs where remediation and developer workflow integration are critical.
Pentera
Overview
Pentera (formerly Pcysys) is an automated penetration testing platform focused on enterprise IT and internal networks. Unlike web application or API-centric solutions, Pentera simulates an attacker who has already gained a foothold inside the perimeter. It attempts lateral movement, privilege escalation, and exploitation of misconfigurations safely to demonstrate real attack paths without disrupting production. Pentera emphasizes “safe exploitation” at scale, turning vulnerabilities into validated attack chains that security leaders can present to executives. Its value lies in continuous security validation of complex hybrid environments, particularly those reliant on Active Directory.
Strengths
✅ Safe exploitation engine: Executes exploits in a controlled way, proving impact without crashing systems.
✅ Attack path visualization: Builds clear chains from entry point to Domain Admin or sensitive data, showing how multiple low-risk issues combine into real breaches.
✅ Lateral movement focus: Highlights pivoting, credential harvesting, and segmentation flaws that traditional scanners miss.
✅ Continuous validation: Can be scheduled frequently, validating whether fixes hold and whether SOC/EDR defenses respond as expected.
Limitations
❌ Not app/API focused: Strength is in internal networks; lacks depth for web apps, APIs, and business logic vulnerabilities like BOLA or IDOR.
❌ Developer workflow gap: Findings are security-team-centric, less actionable for engineers in CI/CD pipelines.
❌ No ASM context: Results aren’t tied to asset ownership or business criticality, limiting prioritization for remediation.
❌ Edge case reliance: Strong for lateral movement but less relevant for organizations without large internal IT estates.
Testing Approach
Controlled exploit simulation across networks and Active Directory. Strong at demonstrating realistic attacker movement inside enterprise environments; weaker for modern app/API pentesting or developer-ready integration.
Org Size Fit
- Best suited for large enterprises (finance, healthcare, government) with hybrid IT and Active Directory dependencies.
- Less relevant for cloud-native or engineering-led organizations that need automation across APIs, SPAs, and microservices.
Reviews
Terra Security
Overview
Terra Security positions itself as an “agentic pentesting” platform that blends AI-driven automation with human oversight. Its model deploys a swarm of AI agents that adapt to business logic and system behavior, but keeps a human in the loop to validate and guide outcomes. Unlike legacy scanners, Terra emphasizes context: vulnerabilities are scored not just by technical severity, but by business impact, probability, and exploitability. Its output is tailored for enterprise needs, with compliance-ready reporting for SOC 2 and ISO The platform appeals most to organizations seeking a balance of automation and auditor-friendly assurance.
Strengths
✅ Coverage: Agents dynamically adjust attacks based on business logic, system behavior, and app-specific risks
✅ In-depth prioritization capabilities: Prioritizes vulnerabilities based on impact to the organization, including comparable breaches and exploitability.
Limitations
❌ Manual reliance: Human oversight slows testing and prevents full autonomy.
❌ Developer handoff gap: Reports are compliance-oriented, not developer-ready for remediation.
❌ Compliance limitations: quite a new solution on the market, coverage only for SOC2 and ISO at the moment; lack of support for more specialized frameworks like PCI-DSS or HIPAA
❌ Workflow integration: Limited evidence of seamless CI/CD fit compared to engineering-first tools.
❌ ASM context missing: Findings aren’t tied to asset ownership or attack surface, reducing operational prioritization.
Testing Approach
Agentic swarm exploration guided by business logic, supplemented each time by human validation (requires human-in-the-loop). Strong for compliance-driven assessments; weaker for continuous, fully automated workflows at developer speed.
Org Size Fit
- Best for large, regulated enterprises (finance, healthcare, SaaS at SOC 2/ISO scale) that prioritize compliance and business-context risk scoring.
- Less suited for lean engineering teams that need continuous automation, asset context, and developer-ready fixes.
Reviews
Detectify
Overview
Detectify brands itself as “continuous penetration testing,” but its real strength lies in continuous attack surface monitoring backed by hacker-sourced payloads. Instead of running scheduled point-in-time assessments, Detectify automates hacker research, regularly updating its scanning engine with exploits, fuzzing strategies, and misconfiguration checks seen in the wild. The platform dynamically maps exposed assets - domains, subdomains, ports, and web apps and applies payload-based testing to uncover vulnerabilities.
Strengths
✅ Continuous attack surface discovery: Automatically identifies domains, open ports, DNS records, SSL/TLS issues, and web technologies.
✅ Hacker-powered payloads: Updates its test suite based on research from top ethical hackers, including hundreds of 0-days and subdomain takeover methods.
✅ Always-on scanning: Continuous recon and testing instead of quarterly engagements, ensuring exposures are caught quickly.
✅ Easy adoption for external scanning: Simple setup and fast onboarding for external web application scanning.
Limitations
❌ Business logic blind spot: Detectify does not systematically test for BOLA, IDOR, or access control flaws.
❌ No native API testing: Lacks support for scanning internal APIs and applications.
❌ Authentication limits: Limited handling of complex authentication flows such as MFA or SSO.
❌ Generic remediation advice: Recommendations are not tailored to specific development frameworks.
❌ Evidence light: Findings are payload-based but often lack reproducible exploit paths
❌ Limited ASM context: Results are not consistently tied to asset ownership or business criticality, making prioritization harder.
❌ Scaling challenges: Less suited for larger or complex security environments.
❌ Compliance gap: While strong at recon, Detectify does not generate compliance-grade reports (PCI, SOC 2, ISO, etc.) often required in enterprise pentests.
Testing Approach
- Payload-driven dynamic scanning enriched by researcher updates. Effective for catching exposures, misconfigurations, and subdomain issues; less effective at deep logic flaws or reproducible exploit chains.
Org Size Fit
- Best suited for startups and mid-market SaaS organizations needing continuous external surface coverage for simple web apps
Reviews
Invicti
Overview
Invicti is a long-established DAST platform that can be used for "automated pentesting" activities. Its strength lies in scale and accuracy: Invicti can crawl large portfolios of web applications and APIs, identify common vulnerabilities, and validate many of them automatically using its “Proof-Based Scanning” technology. This reduces the burden of false positives and provides reproducible exploit traces, which makes it more credible than legacy scanners. That said, Invicti remains fundamentally a vulnerability scanner, strong on coverage of surface-level issues, but not designed for deeper business logic flaws or modern workflow chaining.
Strengths
✅ Proof-Based Scanning: Invicti’s signature capability is its “Proof-Based Scanning,” which attempts safe exploitation to confirm vulnerabilities and reduce false positives.
✅ Broad Coverage: Supports REST, SOAP, and GraphQL APIs along with traditional web applications.
✅ Integrated platform: Part of a broader security suite that also includes Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST) and Software Composition Analysis (SCA).
✅ Customizable scans: Offers security check templates and flexible automation options, making it adaptable for enterprise workflows.
Limitations
❌ GraphQL limits: Support for GraphQL is restricted to basic vulnerability types, leaving more complex logic flaws uncovered.
❌ Dependency on existing documentation: Does not support automatic API specification generation, requiring manual uploads.
❌ Remediation gap: Findings lack developer-ready fixes or code snippets, requiring additional manual effort to translate results into action.
❌ Coverage focus: Primarily focused on web applications, with less coverage for modern cloud-native environments
❌ Cost barrier: Higher entry-level cost compared to other tools on the market.
Testing Approach
- Classic DAST scanning enhanced with automated exploitation for validation. Strong for confirming common vulnerabilities at scale; weaker for business logic security testing and API coverage
Org Size Fit
- Suited for mid-sized to enterprise organizations that need to continuously scan large portfolios of web apps and APIs.
- Less aligned for teams prioritizing deep business logic testing, developer-ready remediation, or ASM-driven risk context.
Reviews
Hadrian
Overview
Hadrian positions itself as an attack surface-driven automated penetration testing platform. Instead of relying on scheduled scans, its Orchestrator AI triggers tests in real time whenever the attack surface changes - a new asset, configuration drift, or emerging exploit. The platform is designed to mimic adversary behavior, continuously probing assets and validating real exploitation paths. Its emphasis is breadth and responsiveness: showing organizations “what attackers see” and proving impact with contextualized validation.
Strengths
✅ Event-driven testing: Security assessments run automatically when assets or configurations change, reducing blind spots.
✅ Full-attack surface coverage: Goes beyond crown-jewel apps, scanning every exposed asset to prevent lateral movement.
✅ Proof-of-exploit validation: Findings include exploitation paths and evidence, cutting false positives.
✅ Prioritization by impact: Contextual scoring highlights which vulnerabilities matter most, helping teams focus remediation.
Limitations
❌ No business logic support: Doesn’t focus on detecting deep business logic flaws (BOLA, IDOR, access control).
❌ ASM-first orientation: Resonates more with security leaders managing exposure than with AppSec engineers looking to automate pentesting and embedding security testing in CI/CD.
❌ Developer gap: Reports validate impact but don’t provide developer-ready fixes or workflow integration
Testing Approach
- Event-driven, ASM-centered testing with adversary-style validation. Effective for proving which exposures are exploitable in real time, but not systematic in uncovering hidden business logic vulnerabilities.
Org Size Fit
- Best suited for mid-to-large organizations with large, dynamic external attack surfaces.
- Not optimized for engineering-led teams focused on continuous in-app business logic testing and developer remediation workflows.
Reviews
Burp Suite
Overview
Burp Suite by PortSwigger is one of the most established tools in web application security testing. Known as the go-to toolkit for penetration testers and bug bounty hunters, Burp combines a powerful intercepting proxy with an automated scanner. Its modular design (Proxy, Repeater, Intruder, Sequencer, etc.) makes it highly flexible for manual exploitation, while Burp Scanner provides DAST-style automation for detecting common vulnerabilities like XSS, SQLghost, and CSRF. While trusted across the industry, Burp remains primarily a manual-first platform: effective in expert hands, but not built for continuous coverage or systematic business logic testing.
Strengths
✅ Customizable testing: Highly customizable, ideal for advanced users needing fine-tuned DAST testing capabilities
✅ Authentication support: Supports a wide range of authentication methods for complex login workflows
✅ Large ecosystem: Part of the Burp Suite ecosystem with a large user and plugin community
Limitations
❌ Manual expertise required: Delivers the best results only in expert hands, requiring significant tuning and manual effort.
❌ Modern API gap: Lacks built-in automation for GraphQL and other modern API scanning.
❌ Business logic blind spot: Does not consistently detect vulnerabilities like BOLA, IDOR, or workflow bypasses.
❌ Resource-intensive: Extensive scans can be slow and consume significant resources, limiting scalability.
Testing Approach
- Manual-first workflow with automated scanning add-on. Strong for security researchers needing control and exploit flexibility; weaker for systematic, evidence-driven automation at scale.
Org Size Fit
- Best for security researchers, bug bounty hunters, and AppSec teams with strong manual testing skills.
- Less suited for organizations seeking automated pentest replacement, developer-ready remediation, and continuous coverage of complex applications.
Reviews
ZAP
Overview
ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) is one of the most widely used open-source DAST tools. it serves as both a proxy for manual testing and an automated vulnerability scanner. Its appeal lies in accessibility: ZAP is free, extensible through add-ons, and backed by an active security community. It’s often compared to Burp Suite, with many seeing it as the free alternative for developers, students, and small companies starting with application security testing.
Strengths
✅ Cost and accessibility: Free, open-source, no licensing barrier, making it an easy entry point.
✅ Proxy and manual testing tools: Includes intercepting proxy, spider, fuzzer, and scripting console.
✅ Automation and API: Offers APIs and GitHub/Jenkins integrations, allowing use in CI/CD pipelines on a budget.
✅ Community ecosystem: Active community, frequent updates, and an add-on marketplace (ZAP Marketplace) with specialized rules and integrations.
Limitations
❌ Business logic blind spot: Lacks systematic detection for business logic vulnerabilities
❌ Noise and validation: Findings often need manual triage; fewer filters and dashboards for reducing false positives compared to enterprise tools.
❌ Scalability: Can be slow and complex to automate at enterprise scale, lacking workflow-ready reporting and prioritization.
❌ ASM context missing: Results are isolated vulnerability lists without asset ownership, severity scoring, or remediation prioritization.
Testing Approach
Proxy-driven exploration plus active and passive scanning. Effective for known CVEs and classic vulnerabilities (XSS, SQLi, CSRF), but weaker in modeling user flows, state transitions, and chained exploits that modern pentests demand.
Org Size Fit
- Best suited for developers, students, and small teams who want a free tool for web app security testing or for organizations adopting security practices on a tight budget.
- Less appropriate for mid-to-large enterprises that require continuous automated pentesting with business logic coverage, validated results, and integration into development workflows.
Reviews
Intruder
Overview
Intruder positions itself as “automated penetration testing,” but in practice, it is closer to a modern vulnerability scanner with continuous monitoring. Its value lies in breadth: running over 150,000 checks for common vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and exposures across infrastructure and web-facing assets. Emerging Threat Scans are triggered soon after new CVEs are disclosed, helping teams react quickly. A proprietary noise reduction algorithm filters out low-value findings, aiming to leave security teams with only exploitable or actionable issues. The platform appeals to organizations seeking simplicity and continuous coverage without the overhead of traditional pentests.
Strengths
✅ CI/CD integration - Easily connects to DevOps workflows for continuous scanning.
✅ Cost-effective - Accessible pricing makes it a practical option for individuals and growing teams.
✅ Continuous coverage - Provides ongoing vulnerability scanning and cloud security insights without heavy setup.
Limitations
❌ Manual testing gap - Some advanced features still require expert involvement to deliver full value.
❌ Limited scope - Does not extend scanning to Kubernetes environments or code-level analysis.
❌ Customization constraints - Lack of scan customization may reduce efficiency in complex environments
Testing Approach
Primarily vulnerability scanning with continuous monitoring, enriched by emerging CVE checks and automated reporting. Strong for infrastructure and broad web exposure testing, weaker for application-specific logic flaws or adversarial exploitation.
Org Size Fit
- Can be suited for small to mid-sized organizations that want continuous visibility over their attack surface
- Less suited for engineering-led orgs or enterprises that need deep application testing, Business Logic Vulnerabilities coverage, or integration into DevSecOps pipelines.
Reviews
Conclusion: Automated Pentesting Without Compromising on Quality
The analysis across automated pentesting tools highlights one truth: manual pentesting no longer scales with how software is built and shipped, but it requires a tool that can actually replace it efficiently.
The real measure of value isn’t whether the platform is there to help you just check the compliance box. It’s whether a platform can actually replace human pentests and enhance its value. When you are evaluating a tool, you should ask yourself:
- Can the tool reliably find even complex business logic flaws that are usually only found through bug bounty or by manual pentesters?
- Can it deliver findings without humans needing to constantly recheck its validity and provide tailored ways to fix the issues, so engineers can fix without debate?
- Can results be tied directly to assets and owners, so security engineers know what matters most and who is responsible?
That’s where Escape sets itself apart.
Our Agentic DAST was purpose-built to replace the weeks-long, high-cost pentest cycle. From code to cloud, Escape continuously models how your applications behave, uncovers business logic flaws other tools miss, and provides developer-ready fixes with full exploit paths.
The result: faster remediation, fewer blind spots, and pentesting that finally keeps pace with modern engineering.
If your team is ready to move past static reports and see how automated pentesting actually works in practice - ⬇
💡 Want to learn more? Discover the following articles: