Skip to main content

Compare approaches

Start with the question
you need answered.

Reviewing code, protecting a runner, checking a push, and demonstrating a control are different jobs. Choose the tools around the work you need to trust.

Find your use caseHow TestifySec fits

Where TestifySec fits

Require evidence.
Manage the decision.

CI/lock records the work. Pushgate checks the push. The platform manages repository gates and connects technical results to control evidence.

Consider TestifySec when you need those jobs to work together across your team. Keep the review, testing, and protection tools that produce useful results.

AI code review

Does this change contain a problem?

CodeRabbit documentation ↗

Start here when

You need review comments, explanations, and suggested fixes while a change is being developed.

Evaluate TestifySec when you also need to

Require an inspectable record of the configured work behind a change, then evaluate that evidence before accepting a push through a gate.

How they fit together

Keep code review in the workflow. A review and a signed execution record answer different questions.

Ask during an evaluation

Can I inspect which producer ran the required checks for this exact change?

Repository rules and CI checks

Can this branch accept the change?

GitHub rulesets documentation ↗

Start here when

Your requirements can be expressed through your Git host’s rules, approvals, and required status checks.

Evaluate TestifySec when you also need to

Collect signed workflow evidence with CI/lock and manage evidence requirements across connected Pushgate repositories through the platform.

How they fit together

Keep the Git host’s protections. Protect direct routes as well as the gate; a repository that permits bypass does not gain universal enforcement.

Ask during an evaluation

What evidence, identity, and code binding support the status I am accepting?

CI runtime security

What is happening inside this runner?

StepSecurity Harden-Runner documentation ↗

Start here when

You need to monitor execution or restrict behavior such as outbound network activity during a CI job.

Evaluate TestifySec when you also need to

Use signed execution evidence in repository decisions and scoped technical-control reviews, with shared policy and evidence management.

How they fit together

Runner protection remains part of the collection boundary. Evidence verification does not replace isolation or prevention controls.

Ask during an evaluation

Can the same verified work record support both a repository decision and a control assessment?

Attestation and provenance tooling

How was this artifact produced?

SLSA requirements and levels ↗

Start here when

You need standard records of software production and can assemble the collection, storage, policy, and enforcement workflow yourself.

Evaluate TestifySec when you also need to

Connect CI/lock evidence, Pushgate enforcement, and platform gate management in one operating model. Reuse technical results in configured control mappings.

How they fit together

Open formats are the foundation. CI/lock is enterprise attestation tooling built on the in-toto specification; it is not an official CNCF enterprise edition.

Ask during an evaluation

Who will operate policy distribution, repository enforcement, identity, and evidence review across teams?

GRC and audit evidence platforms

How do we manage our compliance program?

Vanta evidence collection documentation ↗

Start here when

You need control administration, audit collaboration, evidence collection, and a program-wide view of compliance work.

Evaluate TestifySec when you also need to

Record engineering and operational tests with CI/lock, inspect their signed results, and map them to the technical controls they support.

How they fit together

A recovery rehearsal or remediation check can support a control assessment. It does not replace the broader compliance program or establish an authorization.

Ask during an evaluation

Can I inspect the executed test, its trusted producer, and the result behind this technical-control claim?

Bring one workflow

Compare using your own requirements.

Choose a change, a required check, and the evidence you would accept. Walk through collection, the decision, and the limits together.

Read the trust model

Compare jobs and evaluation questions. Product capabilities and plans vary; this is not an exhaustive vendor feature matrix. Source scope reviewed 2026-10-06.