ComparisonBug bounty or one-off audit?
Bug bounty or one-off audit?
Two logics, two stages.
Bug bounties pay per flaw found. Audits pay for methodical coverage. One is a permanent safety net, the other is a structured diagnosis. Here is how to choose based on your maturity and goals.
Detailed comparison
| Criterion | One-off audit | Bug bounty program |
|---|---|---|
| Cost model | Fixed price per engagement (EUR 1,900 to 10,000+) | Pay per validated flaw (bounty, variable) |
| Coverage | Methodical and structured over a defined scope | Opportunistic, depends on researchers |
| Duration | 1 to 6 weeks (one-time) | Continuous as long as the program is active |
| Required maturity | None, this is often the first step | High (you must triage, validate, and fix quickly) |
| Report quality | Standardized, reproducible evidence | Variable (from excellent to very poor) |
| False positives / duplicates | Very low | Frequent (30-50% of submissions are noise) |
| Triage | Done by the auditor | Your responsibility (or via the platform at extra cost) |
| Compliance | Report usable for GDPR, insurance, clients | No formal report, no direct regulatory value |
| Relationship | Contractual engagement, NDA, confidentiality | Open to hundreds of anonymous researchers |
| Best fit | SMBs in initial diagnosis, compliance, remediation | Mature companies post-audit hunting residual flaws |
Start with an audit if...
- Your application has never been audited
- You do not have a team that can triage bug bounty reports
- You need a formal report for compliance or client requirements
- You want a methodical diagnosis before opening the door to outside researchers
- Your budget is tight and you prefer a predictable fixed cost
Launch a bug bounty if...
- You have already fixed the major flaws surfaced by an audit
- Your team can triage, validate, and fix reports quickly
- You want continuous coverage between formal audits
- Your application is mature enough to handle the volume
- You have the budget for bounty payouts and program management