Secure Design & Threat Modeling

Now pick what to compare OWASP pytm against.

OWASP pytm clear

Open a name for its full profile

IriusRisk
Capabilities only
IriusRisk · Freemium · 5 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Threagile
Capabilities only
Threagile Project · Open Source · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
ThreatModeler
Capabilities only
ThreatModeler Software · Commercial · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool
Capabilities only
Microsoft Security Engineering · Free · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
OWASP Threat Dragon
Capabilities only
OWASP Foundation · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
OWASP pytm
Capabilities only
OWASP Foundation · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
selected
SD Elements
Capabilities only
Security Compass · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Censys Attack Surface Management
Capabilities only
Censys · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Cortex Xpanse
Capabilities only
Palo Alto Networks · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management
Capabilities only
Microsoft · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →

In Secure Design & Threat Modeling

Threagile

Threagile Project · Secure Design & Threat Modeling

Close ×

Open SourceCommunity

Threagile models technical assets, data assets, communication links and trust boundaries in YAML; its risk rules produce data flow diagrams, risk tracking and PDF or Excel reports.

Repository ↗

What it does3 capabilities · 2 at full coverage

2 of 3 at full coverage.

Data Flow & Trust Boundary MappingFullDESIGN · level 2 · 6 providers
Threat ModelingPartialDESIGN · level 2 · 6 providers
Threat Modeling as CodeFullDESIGN · level 3 · 3 providers

What it proves15 controls across 8 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

SAMM 2.04 / 90D-SA-1-A D-TA-1-B D-TA-2-B D-TA-3-B
CSF 2.03 / 106ID.AM-03 ID.RA-03 ID.RA-04
CRA2 / 41Annex I Part I (1) Annex I Part I (2)(j)
SSDF 1.12 / 42PW.1.1 PW.1.2
AI RMF1 / 19MAP 1
CIS Controls1 / 18CIS 16
DSOMM1 / 19CO-Design
OWASP Top 101 / 10A06:2025

What it stops2 techniques · 1 risk

2 techniques countered, 0 of them common

SLSA threat D: Build from modified source or parametersSLSA-D
SLSA threat E: Compromised build processSLSA-E

1 risks reduced

Design-level security flaw shipped to productionHigh

Where it runs2 phases · 2 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Plan3
Code1

How it is delivered

CI/CD integrationCLI tool

What it unlocks2 activities · reaches level 3

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 3. Supporting an activity is not completing it.

Level 2

Threat model critical applications and their pipelinesMedium effort

Level 3

Maintain threat models as code in CIMedium effort

How it holds up

Not assessed yet: no strengths, limits or evaluation scores. 47 of 340 products carry an assessment and 29 are scored.

What it costsOpen source (free) · free tier

LicensingOpen source (free)

Priced pernone

BillingFree

Scales withOperating effort only

Total cost

No license cost, but self-support, upgrades, scaling and integration effort must be budgeted as personnel cost.

What it takes to run

No staffing, rollout time or operational commitment recorded.

What it works with1 standard

Standards and formats

Threagile Model Format

What else to look at

No alternative, competitor or family sibling is modeled for it.

What backs this up

No measurement, incident or pipeline using it.

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13