Looking for a Bearer alternative?
Bearer is a capable, source-available SAST built around data-flow analysis — it shines at discovering and classifying sensitive data (PII/PHI) and supporting privacy and GDPR-style compliance work, and it covers more languages than we do. It's general-purpose, not specialized for AI-generated code. XploitScan is the lighter alternative: a focused scanner tuned for the vulnerability patterns that Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, and Claude Code ship by default, in JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python, run in a single command. If your problem is privacy and sensitive-data mapping across a polyglot codebase, Bearer is likely the better fit. If your problem is shipping AI-generated app code without obvious security holes, that's what we're built for.
XploitScan is a good Bearer alternative if your goal is catching security bugs in AI-generated JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python code; on a third-party benchmark it now catches 15/16 after we fixed the rules behind its misses (8/16 when each case was first added; Bearer 1.50.0 9/16, Semgrep 1.86.0 8/16). But it isn't a full Bearer replacement: Bearer still wins on sensitive-data/PII flow, privacy/GDPR mapping, open rules, and language breadth.
We benchmark against Bearer — and publish the numbers
On a third-party test set (OWASP NodeGoat, OWASP Juice Shop, DVNA, and a lodash prototype-pollution example, with hint comments stripped so no scanner can pattern-match on them), XploitScan missed 8 of the 16 issues when each case was first added. We then fixed the rules behind every miss, and it now catches 15 of 16, but that is no longer a blind score, because we tuned against those cases. Bearer CLI 1.50.0 catches 9 of 16 and Semgrep 1.86.0 with its public registry rulesets catches 8. The code itself is external: nobody on our team wrote it.
We also keep a self-authored benchmark of 649 labeled fixtures. Checked daily and rerun when rules or fixtures change (at least weekly); updates go live with the next deploy. On our own 649-fixture labeled benchmark: 97.2% recall. Of 292 clean fixtures, 82% produce no false-positive findings. Counting the 99 findings on clean fixtures that the Nov 3, 2026 hand review judged to be false positives, after the Nov 4 rule fixes, precision is 86.3%. We built and labeled this benchmark ourselves; results on your code will differ. Both are public at xploitscan.com/benchmark so you can check the work rather than take our word for it. Detection here is regex plus AST plus a light taint pass — not CodeQL-grade semantic analysis — and we'd rather say that plainly than oversell it.
When each one fits
Bearer is the right choice when
- → You need to discover and map sensitive-data flows — where PII/PHI moves through your code and out to third parties
- → Your driver is privacy and compliance (GDPR-style data inventory), not just generic app vulnerabilities
- → You want open, auditable, community-readable rules you can inspect and extend yourself
- → Your codebase spans languages we don't cover — Ruby, Java, PHP, and more alongside JS/TS
- → You want a data-security lens on the codebase, classifying data types rather than only flagging code-level bugs
XploitScan is the right choice when
- → You're shipping code written mostly with Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, or Claude Code and want the failure modes those tools introduce caught
- → Your stack is JavaScript, TypeScript, or Python and you want depth there over breadth everywhere
- → You want to run one command, npx xploitscan@latest scan ., with no signup and a local scan (your source leaves your machine only if ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is set, for AI review by Anthropic)
- → You'd rather see detection quality measured publicly, including a head-to-head against Bearer, than take it on faith
- → You want flat, self-serve pricing (Free $0 / Pro $19/mo / Team $99/mo) with a free tier, not a quote process
Side-by-side
| Dimension | Bearer | XploitScan |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Sensitive-data flow + privacy/compliance (PII/PHI), general-purpose SAST | App-security bugs in AI-generated code (Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Claude Code) |
| Detection approach | Data-flow analysis with open, rules-based engine | Regex + AST + a light taint pass (honestly: not CodeQL-grade semantic analysis) |
| Languages | Broad — JS/TS, Ruby, Java, PHP, and more | JavaScript, TypeScript, Python only |
| Rules | Open, auditable rule set you can read and extend | 223 rules (30 free) |
| Third-party benchmark | 9 / 16 with Bearer CLI 1.50.0 (NodeGoat, Juice Shop, DVNA, a lodash pollution example; hints stripped) | 15/16 after we fixed the rules behind each miss (8/16 when each case was first added), live at xploitscan.com/benchmark |
| CLI | Free, source-available CLI (Elastic License 2.0) | npx xploitscan@latest scan . (no signup, runs locally; source files go to Anthropic only if ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is set) |
| Pricing | Free source-available CLI (Elastic License 2.0) plus Bearer Pro by Cycode (acquired 2024) (as of October 2026) | Flat, self-serve: Free $0 / Pro $19/mo / Team $99/mo |
| Compliance | Strong privacy/GDPR-style data discovery angle | Maps findings to SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / OWASP Top 10 / CWE (informational mapping, not certification) |
Where Bearer legitimately wins
- Sensitive-data flow and PII/PHI classification. This is Bearer's core strength and a genuinely different job than ours. It traces where personal and health data moves through your application and out to third parties, and classifies the data types along the way. XploitScan does not do data-flow inventory or PII classification — if that's your need, Bearer is the better tool, full stop.
- Open, auditable rules. Bearer's source-available code means you can read, audit, and extend the rules directly. If you need full transparency into detection logic or want to write your own rules against your conventions, that openness is a real advantage we don't match.
- Broader language coverage. Bearer supports more languages than we do — Ruby, Java, PHP, and others alongside JS/TS. XploitScan is deliberately limited to JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python, so a polyglot codebase outside those three is better served elsewhere.
- Privacy and compliance positioning. Bearer is built for the data-security and privacy/compliance (GDPR-style) use case. If your program is driven by data-protection requirements rather than catching code-level app vulnerabilities, that framing fits Bearer far better than us.
Frequently asked questions
Is XploitScan a good alternative to Bearer?
It depends on your goal. If you're shipping AI-generated app code and want the failure modes that Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, and Claude Code introduce caught in JavaScript, TypeScript, or Python, XploitScan is a strong fit. On a third-party benchmark (OWASP NodeGoat, Juice Shop, DVNA, a lodash pollution example; hints stripped) it catches 15/16 after we fixed the rules behind its misses (8/16 when each case was first added; Bearer 1.50.0 9/16, Semgrep 1.86.0 8/16). If your driver is sensitive-data flow, PII/PHI classification, or GDPR-style privacy mapping across many languages, Bearer is the better tool.
Does XploitScan replace Bearer?
Not for every use case. XploitScan is a focused SAST-style scanner for AI-generated code in JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python plus config formats, using regex, Babel-parsed AST, and a light local taint pass. Bearer does data-flow analysis to discover and classify PII/PHI and support privacy/compliance work across broader languages. If privacy and sensitive-data inventory is your problem, Bearer isn't something XploitScan replaces.
Is XploitScan or Bearer better for a solo dev shipping vibe-coded apps?
For a solo dev shipping code from tools like Cursor or Claude Code, XploitScan is usually the more practical choice. You run one command, npx xploitscan@latest scan ., with no signup, and it scans locally. Your source leaves your machine only if ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is set, in which case your source files are sent to Anthropic for AI review. Pricing is flat and self-serve (Free $0 / Pro $19/mo / Team $99/mo). Bearer leans toward privacy and data-security programs, so it's a better fit when that's your actual need.
XploitScan vs Bearer for detecting security vulnerabilities?
On a third-party test set (NodeGoat, Juice Shop, DVNA, a lodash pollution example, with hint comments stripped), XploitScan catches 15/16 after we fixed the rules behind its misses (8/16 when each case was first added; Bearer 1.50.0 9/16, Semgrep 1.86.0 8/16). The numbers are public and reproducible at xploitscan.com/benchmark. That said, XploitScan's detection is regex plus AST plus a light taint pass, not CodeQL-grade semantic analysis, and it only covers JS, TS, and Python. Bearer's data-flow engine and broader language coverage win for sensitive-data tracing.
When should I choose Bearer over XploitScan?
Choose Bearer when you need to map where PII/PHI moves through your code and out to third parties, when your program is driven by privacy and GDPR-style compliance rather than generic app bugs, when you want open, auditable rules you can read and extend, or when your codebase spans languages XploitScan doesn't cover like Ruby, Java, or PHP. Those are genuine Bearer strengths XploitScan doesn't match.
Try XploitScan on your code
Free: 3 demo scans a day with no account, or 5 a day with a free account. Or run one command, npx xploitscan@latest scan ., locally. Your source stays on your machine unless ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is set in your environment; then your source files are sent to Anthropic for AI review. See what the scanner finds in your actual project before you decide.
XploitScan maps findings to SOC 2, ISO 27001, OWASP Top 10, and CWE for reference — informational mapping to help organize remediation, not a certification. XploitScan is built by Cipherline LLC, Fairfield CT.