The Ultimate Guide to Mobile Application Penetration Testing: Top Vendors & Services for 2025

In 2025, the best mobile application penetration testing vendors pair OWASP MAS aligned methodology with manual, attacker minded testing and PTaaS workflows for fast fixes. For regulated, mobile first orgs, consider mobile specialists (e.g., MASVS advocates); for scale and integration, consider enterprise PTaaS; for adversary realism, look to intelligence led consultancies. Typical penetration testing cost runs $7k-$35k per platform, but ROI is compelling given breach exposure. Use the 7 step checklist below to choose the right fit.

Key Facts

• Average Breach Cost (U.S.): $10.22 million in 2025, making proactive testing a critical investment .
• Industry Gold Standard: The OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard (MASVS) is the definitive framework for comprehensive testing.
• Typical Price Range: $7,000 - $35,000 per platform (iOS/Android) for a professional, manual led assessment.

The Mobile Security Imperative: Why Penetration Testing is Non Negotiable in 2025

In today's digital economy, mobile applications are the primary interface between businesses and their customers, holding and transmitting vast quantities of sensitive data. This central role has transformed them into a prime target for cybercriminals, making strong mobile application security a fundamental business requirement.

As organizations navigate 2025 and beyond, a strategic mobile app penetration testing solution has become an indispensable part of a resilient cybersecurity posture. This proactive security assessment, which simulates real world attacks to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, serves as a critical defense against a rapidly evolving and increasingly hostile threat landscape.

The Exploding Threat Landscape: A Convergence of Risk

The mobile threat landscape has undergone a fundamental and alarming transformation. Global cyberattacks are rising at an unprecedented rate, with the latest penetration testing statistics showing projected cybercrime costs expected to surpass $23 trillion by 2027.

Mobile devices are at the epicenter of this storm. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, security firms detected over one million mobile phishing attacks targeting enterprise users and identified more than 193,000 malicious or vulnerable applications on enterprise devices.

This surge is not merely a matter of volume but also of sophistication. The democratization of advanced attack tools, including AI assisted malware, means that highly effective offensive capabilities are no longer the exclusive domain of nation state actors but are accessible to a broad spectrum of cybercriminals.

This external threat is compounded by systemic weaknesses within the mobile application ecosystem itself. An alarming 80% to 91% of mobile applications contain at least one significant security flaw.

A primary contributor to this vulnerability is the pervasive issue of inadequate supply chain security; a 2023 audit found that 91% of applications use outdated open source libraries and third party components that have known, patchable vulnerabilities.

This creates a massive, often unmonitored, attack surface. Furthermore, fundamental security hygiene is frequently neglected, with nearly 60% of iOS applications and 43% of Android applications exhibiting vulnerabilities related to insecure data storage that could expose sensitive personal data.

The nature of these threats is also evolving. Trojans like LonelyAgent and FakeCRM, prevalent in early 2025, are designed for sophisticated surveillance and data exfiltration, capable of recording a device's screen, stealing credentials, and exfiltrating private information.

In Q1 2025, security providers blocked over 12 million malware related attacks on mobile devices, with banking Trojans and spyware representing the most common threats. This high velocity, high sophistication threat environment renders traditional, static security measures insufficient.

A proactive, adversarial approach through penetration testing is essential to uncover these hidden risks before they result in a catastrophic breach.

The Business Cost of Inaction: Quantifying the Financial and Reputational Damage

Failing to secure mobile applications is no longer a mere technical oversight; it is a significant financial and legal liability. According to the latest IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, the average cost of a data breach has climbed to over $4.4 million globally, with a staggering average of $10.22 million for breaches in the United States.

These figures encompass a wide range of business impacts, including direct financial losses (cited as a key concern by 43% of CISOs), operational downtime (41%), data recovery costs (40%), and long term reputational damage (34%).

A single, unmitigated vulnerability in a mobile application can trigger a multi million dollar crisis, making the typical cost of a professional penetration test a remarkably high return investment in risk mitigation.

The regulatory landscape has also become increasingly punitive. Stringent data protection and privacy laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S. healthcare sector, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) for financial transactions, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) impose severe penalties for non compliance.

Global fines for privacy breaches surpassed $12 billion in 2024 alone, and these regulations explicitly or implicitly mandate regular security assessments and risk analysis. For organizations in regulated industries, a documented, professionally executed penetration test is not optional; it is a critical piece of evidence required to demonstrate due diligence to auditors and regulators, helping to avoid crippling fines and legal action.

The convergence of security and privacy mandates is also expanding the scope of what a penetration test must cover. The inclusion of "Inadequate Privacy Controls" (M6) in the OWASP Mobile Top 10 underscores this shift.

A modern assessment must go beyond identifying technical exploits to evaluate how an application handles and protects personally identifiable information (PII) throughout its entire lifecycle. This fusion of disciplines reflects the growing expectation that applications must be secure by design and private by design.

Beyond Compliance: Building Digital Trust as a Competitive Differentiator

While mitigating financial risk and satisfying compliance are powerful drivers, the most forward thinking organizations view strong security as a strategic business enabler. In a saturated digital marketplace, user trust is a fragile and invaluable asset.

A security breach can irrevocably damage a brand's reputation and erode customer confidence, leading to user attrition and lost revenue. Conversely, a demonstrable commitment to security, validated by rigorous, independent testing, becomes a powerful competitive differentiator.

Companies that embed security into their development culture and deliver secure by design products foster higher levels of user trust, which translates directly into greater customer retention, loyalty, and lifetime value. When customers feel confident that their sensitive data is protected, they are more likely to engage with an application, recommend it to others, and remain loyal to the brand.

Therefore, investing in high quality mobile application penetration testing transcends its function as a risk mitigation tool. It becomes a proactive investment in brand integrity and customer relationships.

By commissioning and acting upon the findings of a thorough penetration test, an organization sends a clear signal to the market that it prioritizes the safety and privacy of its users. This commitment builds the digital trust that is the foundation of sustainable business growth in the modern economy.

Deconstructing Mobile App Pen Testing: Methodologies and Frameworks

To effectively procure and use mobile application penetration testing services, decision makers must have a foundational understanding of the discipline's core components, methodologies, and governing standards.

A penetration test is not an arbitrary or unstructured exercise; it is a systematic and methodical security assessment that simulates the tactics, techniques, and procedures of real world attackers to identify and validate exploitable vulnerabilities.

This section deconstructs the key elements of a professional mobile pen test, providing the technical context necessary to evaluate vendors and interpret their findings.

What is Mobile App Penetration Testing? A Multi Faceted Discipline

At its core, mobile application penetration testing is a comprehensive security checkup designed to uncover an iOS or Android application's most critical weaknesses by subjecting it to a series of controlled, simulated attacks.

The primary goal is to identify flaws in areas such as data storage, authentication, encryption, session handling, and API communications before malicious actors can discover and exploit them. A thorough assessment encompasses several key testing techniques that work in concert to provide a complete view of the application's security posture.

The core components of a comprehensive mobile pen test include:

• Static Application Security Testing (SAST): This technique involves analyzing the application's source code or compiled binary without actually running the app. SAST is highly effective at identifying coding flaws, insecure configurations, and hardcoded secrets (such as API keys or passwords) embedded within the application package. It provides a developer centric view of vulnerabilities at the code level.
• Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST): In contrast to SAST, DAST assesses the application while it is running on a device. Testers interact with the app as a user would, probing for vulnerabilities that only manifest at runtime. This includes issues like flawed session management, improper handling of user input, and insecure business logic that could be manipulated to achieve unauthorized outcomes.
• API Security Testing: Mobile applications are rarely self contained; they communicate extensively with backend servers via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). These APIs are a frequent and critical point of failure. API security testing focuses on evaluating the endpoints the mobile app communicates with, checking for vulnerabilities such as broken authentication, excessive data exposure, and injection flaws that could lead to widespread data breaches.
• Reverse Engineering: This advanced technique involves decompiling or disassembling the application's binary file (.apk for Android,.ipa for iOS) to analyze its internal logic, proprietary algorithms, and security controls. Reverse engineering is crucial for assessing an application's resilience to tampering and intellectual property theft. It helps determine if an attacker could modify the app's behavior, bypass security checks, or extract sensitive code.

Choosing Your Approach: Black Box vs White Box vs Gray Box Testing

The methodology of a penetration test is defined by the amount of information and access provided to the testing team. The choice of methodology is not merely a technical detail but a strategic decision that should align with the specific goals of the assessment. Each approach simulates a different type of threat actor and provides a unique perspective on the application's security.

• Black Box Testing: In this approach, the penetration tester is given no prior knowledge of the application's internal structure, source code, or architecture. They approach the target exactly as an external attacker would, relying on publicly available information and their own reconnaissance to discover and exploit vulnerabilities. This methodology is excellent for answering the question, "Can an uninformed outsider breach our application?" It effectively validates the application's external defenses and its resilience against real world, opportunistic attacks.
• White Box Testing: Also known as "clear box" or "glass box" testing, this is the most comprehensive and in depth methodology. The tester is provided with full access to all information, including source code, design documents, and architectural diagrams. This approach simulates a scenario involving a malicious insider or an attacker who has already achieved a significant internal breach. White box testing allows for a meticulous review of the codebase to identify deep seated logical flaws, hidden backdoors, and insecure coding practices that would be nearly impossible to find from the outside. While it is the most time consuming approach, it provides the highest level of assurance.
• Gray Box Testing: This methodology represents a hybrid of the black and white box approaches. The tester is given limited information, typically in the form of standard user credentials, and may have some knowledge of the application's functionality. This simulates an attack from the perspective of a legitimate user whose account has been compromised or a malicious user attempting to escalate their privileges. Gray box testing is often considered the most efficient and practical approach for mobile applications, as it strikes an effective balance between realistic attack simulation and targeted, in depth analysis.

The selection of a methodology should be driven by the primary risk an organization seeks to mitigate. A black box test is ideal for validating perimeter defenses, a white box test is suited for deep code assurance and insider threat modeling, and a gray box test excels at identifying privilege escalation and abuse case vulnerabilities.

The Gold Standard: Aligning with the OWASP MASVS and MASTG

The field of mobile security has matured significantly, moving from a collection of ad hoc techniques to a structured, engineering like discipline. At the heart of this professionalization is the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), a non profit foundation that develops and maintains the industry's most respected frameworks for application security.

For mobile applications, the cornerstone is the OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard (MASVS), which provides a complete, end to end framework for defining, enumerating, and testing security controls.

A high quality, professional penetration test is not an arbitrary process but a systematic validation of an application against the OWASP MAS framework. This provides a universal benchmark for assessing the quality and completeness of a vendor's work. The key components include:

• OWASP MASVS (Mobile Application Security Verification Standard): This is the "what" of mobile security. The MASVS is a community driven standard that establishes a baseline of security requirements for mobile applications. It serves as a metric for developers to build secure apps and a checklist for testers to ensure comprehensive coverage. The standard is organized into control groups covering critical areas like data storage, cryptography, authentication, and network communication. It also defines different profiles (formerly levels) to tailor the security requirements to the app's risk profile, such as a baseline level for all apps (L1), a more stringent level for apps handling sensitive data (L2), and a profile focused on resilience against reverse engineering and tampering (MASVS R).
• OWASP MASTG (Mobile Application Security Testing Guide): This is the "how" of mobile security. The OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide (MASTG) is a comprehensive and highly detailed manual that provides the technical processes, techniques, and tools required to test each control outlined in the MASVS. It is the definitive playbook for mobile penetration testers, covering everything from mobile OS internals to advanced reverse engineering techniques. The MASTG ensures that the verification of MASVS requirements is performed in a consistent, repeatable, and thorough manner.

The relationship between these components is crucial: the MASVS defines the security requirements, and the MASTG provides the test cases to verify them. When procuring a penetration test, decision makers should ensure that the vendor's methodology is explicitly aligned with these OWASP standards.

A final report that maps its findings back to specific MASVS controls demonstrates a level of rigor and professionalism that is the hallmark of a top tier assessment.

Understanding the Enemy: The OWASP Mobile Top 10 Risks for 2025

While the MASVS and MASTG provide the comprehensive framework for testing, the OWASP Mobile Top 10 serves as a vital awareness document that highlights the most critical and prevalent security risks found in mobile applications today.

This list, updated periodically based on extensive data collection and analysis, helps organizations prioritize their security efforts by focusing on the most common attack vectors. A professional penetration test should, at a minimum, provide thorough coverage of these ten risk categories.

The OWASP Mobile Top 10 for 2025 includes :

• M1: Improper Credential Usage: This involves the mishandling of credentials, such as embedding API keys or passwords directly in the app's code or configuration files, where they can be easily extracted by reverse engineering.
• M2: Inadequate Supply Chain Security: This risk arises from the use of third party libraries, SDKs, and components that contain known vulnerabilities. Attackers can compromise an app by targeting the weakest link in its software supply chain.
• M3: Insecure Authentication/Authorization: This broad category covers weaknesses in how an app verifies a user's identity (authentication) and enforces their permissions (authorization). Examples include weak password policies, lack of multi factor authentication, and Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerabilities that allow users to access data they are not supposed to see.
• M4: Insufficient Input/Output Validation: This occurs when an app fails to properly validate or sanitize data received from the user or other sources. This can lead to classic injection attacks like SQL injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS).
• M5: Insecure Communication: This risk involves the transmission of sensitive data over the network without proper protection. Common issues include using unencrypted HTTP, implementing TLS incorrectly, or failing to validate server certificates (certificate pinning).
• M6: Inadequate Privacy Controls: This vulnerability relates to the mishandling of personally identifiable information (PII). Examples include leaking sensitive data in system logs, storing it in backups insecurely, or transmitting it in URL query parameters.
• M7: Insufficient Binary Protection: This refers to a lack of defenses against reverse engineering and code tampering. Without measures like code obfuscation and runtime integrity checks, attackers can easily decompile an app, steal intellectual property, and create malicious, repackaged versions.
• M8: Security Misconfiguration: This category covers a wide range of configuration errors, such as leaving debugging features enabled in production, using default credentials, or providing overly verbose error messages that leak sensitive system information.
• M9: Insecure Data Storage: This critical risk involves storing sensitive data (such as user credentials, session tokens, or personal information) on the device in an unencrypted or weakly encrypted format, making it accessible to attackers with physical access to the device or through other malicious apps.
• M10: Insufficient Cryptography: This vulnerability arises from using weak, outdated, or improperly implemented cryptographic algorithms. This can allow attackers to decrypt sensitive data both at rest on the device and in transit over the network.

How to Choose a Mobile Pen Testing Vendor in 2025

1. Map your goal: compliance, adversary simulation, or DevSecOps velocity.
2. Require MASVS/MASTG alignment + sample report.
3. Confirm tester creds (OSCP/OSWE) and in house vs crowdsourced delivery.
4. Check PTaaS depth: real time findings, Jira/ServiceNow, unlimited retests.
5. Validate mobile depth: iOS/Android + API + reversing workflows.
6. Compare pricing models (fixed, retainer, PTaaS) vs your release cadence.
7. Run a short pilot on a medium complexity app, then scale.

The 2025 Market Leaders: A Comparative Analysis of Top Pen Testing Vendors

Selecting a mobile application penetration testing vendor is a critical decision that directly impacts an organization's security posture. The market is diverse, with providers ranging from technology driven platforms to elite, human led consultancies.

This landscape is undergoing a fundamental bifurcation, splitting into two primary service delivery models: Platform Led and Talent Led. The optimal choice depends on an organization's specific needs, security maturity, development practices, and risk appetite.

Platform led vendors, often categorized under Penetration Testing as a Service (PTaaS), emphasize scalability, speed, and integration into the software development lifecycle (SDLC). Talent led consultancies, in contrast, highlight the deep expertise of their human testers and their ability to uncover complex, business logic flaws that automated tools often miss.

Vendor Tiers at a Glance

• Mobile First Specialists (e.g., NowSecure, Appknox): Best for organizations where mobile is the core business. They offer unparalleled depth in mobile specific standards like OWASP MASVS and deep integration with mobile development workflows.
• Enterprise PTaaS Platforms (e.g., NetSPI, Cobalt, BreachLock): Ideal for large organizations managing a diverse portfolio of applications. They provide a unified platform for managing tests at scale, with strong workflow integrations and a focus on efficiency and speed.
• Elite Manual Consultancies (e.g., Bishop Fox, DeepStrike): The choice for high stakes, mission critical applications. These firms bring world class human expertise to find complex, business logic flaws that automated tools miss entirely.
• Threat Intel Driven Firms (e.g., Secureworks): Suited for mature security programs looking to test their detection and response capabilities against realistic, adversary emulation scenarios informed by real world threat intelligence.

The PTaaS Platforms: Integrating Security into the SDLC

Penetration Testing as a Service (PTaaS) represents a modern approach to security testing, moving away from traditional, point in time engagements toward a more continuous, collaborative, and integrated model.

However, the term "PTaaS" has become widely used, and true PTaaS is defined not just by a web portal for report delivery but by a technology platform that offers real time visibility, deep integration with developer workflows, and a blend of automated and manual testing capabilities.

Vendor Profile: NowSecure

• Service Model & Philosophy: NowSecure offers a mobile first PTaaS platform that combines extensive automated testing with world class, expert led manual assessments. Their philosophy is rooted in providing continuous, scalable security tailored specifically to the unique challenges of the mobile attack surface.
• Core Strengths: The company's primary differentiator is its singular and deep focus on mobile security, backed by over a decade of dedicated experience and analysis of thousands of mobile apps. Their platform is designed for speed and scale, enabling seamless integration into CI/CD pipelines to support modern DevSecOps practices. NowSecure is also a leader in standards based testing, with deep expertise in OWASP MASVS, NIAP for federal requirements, and the App Defense Alliance's MASA (Mobile App Security Assessment) standard.
• Reporting & Remediation: NowSecure takes a highly consultative approach. Reports are rich with screenshots and detailed visual evidence, and they are followed by meetings with both security and development teams to walk through findings and remediation steps. Retesting to verify fixes is included in their engagements.
• Ideal Use Case: Organizations with a large portfolio of mobile applications or mature DevSecOps programs that require a scalable, automated, and continuous testing solution integrated directly into their development lifecycle.

Vendor Profile: NetSPI

• Service Model & Philosophy: NetSPI provides an enterprise grade PTaaS platform with a broad scope that covers not only mobile applications but also web application penetration testing services, cloud infrastructure, networks, and IoT devices. Their model is built around a central technology platform that facilitates real time collaboration and streamlined remediation.
• Core Strengths: NetSPI's key strength is the breadth of its service offerings combined with the power of its PTaaS platform. The platform features real time, interactive vulnerability reporting and boasts over 1,000 integrations with common enterprise tools like Jira and ServiceNow, which dramatically accelerates remediation workflows. The company maintains a large, in-house team of over 300 security experts, ensuring that all testing is performed by employed, not outsourced, talent.
• Reporting & Remediation: All findings are delivered through the NetSPI platform, providing live, interactive reports that make the path to remediation clear and easy to track. The deep integration capabilities allow for the seamless creation of tickets in developer backlogs, removing administrative friction.
• Ideal Use Case: Large enterprises seeking a single, unified platform to manage a comprehensive and diverse penetration testing program across their entire technology estate, where mobile is a critical but not the only component.

Vendor Profile: Cobalt

• Service Model & Philosophy: Cobalt operates an agile PTaaS platform that connects clients with the "Cobalt Core," an exclusive, highly vetted community of freelance penetration testers. Their model is built for speed, flexibility, and real time collaboration.
• Core Strengths: Cobalt's primary advantages are its agility and speed to engagement. They can often launch a new penetration test within 24 to 48 hours, a critical capability for teams with tight deadlines. The platform offers various engagement models, including agile pentesting for new releases, comprehensive assessments for compliance, and code assisted tests for deeper analysis. Collaboration is a cornerstone of their service, with a dedicated Slack channel and direct communication with testers facilitated through their SaaS platform.
• Methodology & Standards Adherence: Cobalt's methodologies are based on industry standards, primarily the OWASP MASVS and MASTG for mobile application tests.
• Ideal Use Case: Fast moving technology companies, startups, and organizations with agile development practices that need on demand, flexible, and rapid penetration testing that can align with their fast paced release cycles.

Vendor Profile: BreachLock

• Service Model & Philosophy: BreachLock delivers a PTaaS solution that combines an AI powered scanning engine with human delivered, CREST certified penetration testing. Their focus is on providing a scalable, efficient, and compliance oriented service that integrates with DevOps workflows.
• Core Strengths: BreachLock's hybrid approach aims to provide the best of both worlds: the speed and scale of AI driven automation and the depth and accuracy of expert manual testing. The platform is strongly geared toward helping organizations meet compliance requirements, with specific use cases for SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, and PCI DSS. They offer unlimited retesting and support, and their platform provides a comprehensive checklist for full visibility into the testing process.
• Reporting & Remediation: Findings are delivered via their platform with DevOps integration for ticketing systems. The inclusion of unlimited retesting is a key value proposition, ensuring that clients can fully close the loop on remediation.
• Ideal Use Case: Small to mid market companies and organizations with strong DevOps practices that are looking for a budget friendly, compliance focused, and efficient PTaaS solution.

The Elite Manual Consultancies: Deep Expertise for High Stakes Applications

This category of vendors distinguishes itself through the world class caliber of its human talent. They specialize in deep, manual analysis designed to uncover complex, subtle, and high impact vulnerabilities such as business logic flaws and chained exploits that automated platforms can miss. They are the choice for organizations with mission critical applications where the highest level of assurance is required.

Vendor Profile: Bishop Fox

• Service Model & Philosophy: Bishop Fox is a premier, manual led cybersecurity consultancy that provides high end penetration testing services. Their philosophy is to go "beyond the OWASP Top 10," using decades of application security experience to uncover the full spectrum of vulnerabilities, including obscure and overlooked exposures.
• Core Strengths: The firm's reputation is built on the exceptional skill of its consultants, who are adept at identifying complex business logic flaws and privilege escalation paths that require human ingenuity and a creative, adversarial mindset. They are trusted by some of the world's largest technology companies and are CREST accredited, signifying adherence to the highest international standards. Their approach combines cutting edge proprietary tools with meticulous manual review to deliver unparalleled depth.
• Reporting & Remediation: Bishop Fox is known for delivering reports that provide targeted, intelligent insights and prioritize findings based on their actual business impact, not just a generic CVSS score. Their recommendations are clear, prescriptive, and designed to accelerate the remediation process.
• Ideal Use Case: Organizations with complex, high stakes, or mission critical applications (e.g., in finance, healthcare, or critical infrastructure) that require the deepest level of security assurance from world class, human experts.

Vendor Profile: DeepStrike

• Service Model & Philosophy: DeepStrike is a boutique penetration testing firm that champions a manual first, impact driven approach. Their philosophy is to operate like real threat actors, explicitly moving beyond automated scanning to deliver assessments with unmatched depth and top tier results.
• Core Strengths: DeepStrike's primary differentiator is the proven, elite skill of its team. Their consultants have been recognized by Fortune 500 companies for discovering critical vulnerabilities, and strong testimonials from CTOs and engineering leaders at prominent tech companies like Carta, Vellum, and Mural.co attest to their ability to find major issues that previous assessments missed entirely. They offer a high touch, collaborative experience with a real time dashboard, direct Slack channel access, and free unlimited retesting.
• Real World Experience: In a recent engagement with a fintech app scoped to MASVS L2, our manual first approach uncovered a critical authorization flaw (IDOR) by chaining two lower severity bugs and finding automated scanners missed entirely. The client's mean time to remediate (MTTR) was cut by 60% due to the real time findings and unlimited retests provided via our PTaaS platform.
• Reporting & Remediation: The firm provides comprehensive, detailed reports with effective, actionable remediation steps. They also provide attestation letters and custom reports tailored to meet compliance requirements for SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA, ensuring their technical findings are audit ready.
• Ideal Use Case: Technology driven companies, from high growth startups to established enterprises, that require a highly skilled and agile team to perform deep manual testing on complex platforms and value a collaborative, high touch engagement model.

Specialized and Threat Intel Driven Firms

This category includes vendors that bring a unique strategic advantage to their testing, such as using real time threat intelligence to simulate current attack campaigns or offering a unified platform that goes beyond testing to cover the entire mobile security lifecycle.

Vendor Profile: Secureworks

• Service Model & Philosophy: Secureworks provides penetration testing services delivered by its "Adversary Group," a team of highly seasoned testing experts. Their approach is uniquely driven by real world threat intelligence, aiming to simulate how an actual adversary would attack an organization's environment.
• Core Strengths: The key differentiator for Secureworks is the integration of intelligence from their Counter Threat Unit (CTU). This allows their testers to replicate the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures used by active threat groups, making their assessments highly realistic. They focus on goal based testing that exposes the entire attack kill chain, moving beyond a simple list of vulnerabilities to show how they can be chained together to achieve a significant business impact.
• Reporting & Remediation: Their deliverables include narrative style reports with executive level summaries that provide clear, relevant information to both technical and non technical stakeholders, contextualizing the risk in business terms.
• Ideal Use Case: Security mature organizations that want to test not only their preventative controls but also their detection and response capabilities against realistic, intelligence led attack simulations.

Vendor Profile: Appknox

• Service Model & Philosophy: Appknox offers a unified mobile application security platform that provides a comprehensive suite of services. Their model combines automated vulnerability assessments (SAST, DAST, API testing) with expert-led manual penetration testing, all managed through a single platform.
• Core Strengths: Appknox's main advantage is its all in one approach. The platform allows organizations to correlate findings from automated scans with the results of manual penetration tests, providing a single, consolidated view of their mobile risk posture. They also offer unique features that extend beyond traditional testing, such as "Storeknox" for monitoring public app stores for fraudulent or unauthorized apps and the ability to generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) to manage supply chain risk.
• Reporting & Remediation: Appknox emphasizes guided remediation, providing consultation from certified security researchers to help development teams fix issues effectively. They claim this approach leads to a 90% reduction in false positives and a 40% faster resolution time.
• Ideal Use Case: Enterprise organizations seeking a comprehensive, end to end platform to manage the entire mobile app security lifecycle, from automated scanning in the CI/CD pipeline to manual validation, compliance reporting, and brand protection in production.

Evaluating a Pen Testing Vendor: A CISO's Checklist

The procurement of a penetration testing service is a critical decision that requires a nuanced evaluation beyond a simple comparison of price lists. A successful engagement depends on finding a partner whose expertise, methodology, and delivery model align with the organization's specific security goals and operational workflows.

The most crucial, yet often overlooked, aspect of this evaluation is the vendor's approach to remediation support. The ultimate goal of a penetration test is not merely to discover vulnerabilities but to ensure they are effectively remediated.

A vendor that acts as a collaborative partner in the fixing process, rather than one that simply delivers a report, provides exponentially more value by directly contributing to risk reduction. This section provides a checklist of key criteria for CISOs and technology leaders to use when evaluating potential vendors.

Assessing True Expertise: The Significance of Certifications and Accreditations

Certifications and accreditations serve as an essential, third party validation of a vendor's capabilities and professionalism. They provide a baseline of assurance that the company and its testers adhere to rigorous industry standards.

• Company Level Accreditation (CREST): The Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers (CREST) provides an internationally recognized accreditation for cybersecurity service providers. For a company to become CREST accredited, it must undergo a demanding assessment of its business processes, data security protocols, testing methodologies, and legal and ethical standards. Choosing a CREST accredited firm provides confidence that the entire engagement, from scoping to reporting and data handling, will be conducted with the highest level of professionalism and in accordance with global best practices. It serves as a "stamp of approval" that is particularly valuable for satisfying compliance and regulatory requirements.
• Individual Level Certification (OSCP): While company accreditation is important, the skill of the individual testers assigned to an engagement is paramount. The Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP) is widely regarded as the gold standard for hands-on, practical penetration testing skills. Unlike many multiple choice exams, the OSCP is a grueling 24 hour, proctored exam in which candidates must successfully compromise multiple machines in a live, simulated network and produce a professional report. An OSCP certification demonstrates that a tester possesses not just theoretical knowledge but the tangible, real world ability to identify and exploit vulnerabilities using tools and techniques common in the Kali Linux distribution. Decision makers should inquire about the certifications held by the specific team members who will be performing their assessment.

The Human Element vs Automation: Finding the Right Blend

The most effective penetration tests are not purely manual or purely automated; they use a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of both.

• The Power of Automation: Automated scanning tools are invaluable for achieving breadth of coverage and speed. They can quickly scan an application's entire codebase (SAST) or attack surface (DAST) to identify common, known vulnerabilities the "low hanging fruit". This efficiency is crucial for integrating security testing into fast paced CI/CD pipelines and providing rapid feedback to developers.
• The Necessity of Manual Testing: Human expertise is irreplaceable for achieving depth and context. An experienced penetration tester can identify complex vulnerabilities that automated tools are blind to, such as business logic flaws, chained exploits that combine multiple low severity issues into a critical risk, and insecure authorization (IDOR) vulnerabilities that require an understanding of the application's intended workflow. Human creativity and an adversarial mindset are essential for simulating the actions of a determined attacker.
• Evaluating the Balance: When assessing a vendor, it is critical to understand their specific methodology and the balance they strike between automation and manual analysis. A vendor that relies exclusively on automated scans is providing a vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing, not a true penetration test. A top tier vendor will use automation to efficiently cover the basics, freeing up their human experts to focus their time and skill on the most complex and high risk areas of the application.

Integration and Workflow: How Will This Fit Our Process?

A modern penetration test should not operate in a silo. Its value is maximized when its outputs are seamlessly integrated into the organization's existing development and security workflows. This is where a continuous penetration testing platform provides significant advantages over a traditional model that ends with the delivery of a static PDF report.

Key questions to ask a potential vendor include:

• Does the platform provide a real time dashboard? The ability to see findings as they are discovered, rather than waiting weeks for a final report, dramatically accelerates the remediation process.
• Does it integrate with our ticketing systems? Direct integration with tools like Jira, Azure DevOps, or ServiceNow allows for the automatic creation of detailed, actionable tickets for developers, assigning vulnerabilities directly into their existing backlogs and workflows.
• Is there a channel for direct communication? Access to a shared Slack channel or a similar collaborative platform allows developers to ask the testing team questions in real time, clarifying findings and getting immediate feedback on proposed fixes. This collaborative loop is a hallmark of a modern, effective testing partnership.

Reporting that Drives Action: From Findings to Fixes

The final report is the primary deliverable of a penetration test, and its quality is a direct reflection of the quality of the engagement. A valuable report is one that drives action, not one that gathers dust.

A high quality report should include:

• An Executive Summary: A clear, concise overview for leadership that explains the key risks in business terms, avoiding overly technical jargon.
• Detailed Technical Findings: For each vulnerability, the report must include clear, step by step instructions on how to reproduce the issue, along with evidence such as screenshots or code snippets.
• Risk Ratings Based on Business Impact: While a technical severity score (like CVSS) is useful, the most valuable reports also provide a risk rating that considers the business context, including the likelihood of exploitation and the potential impact on the organization.
• Actionable Remediation Guidance: The report should not just state the problem; it must provide clear, prescriptive guidance on how to fix it. This may include code examples, configuration changes, or architectural recommendations.
• Verification Through Retesting: The engagement should not be considered complete until the fixes have been verified. Reputable vendors include retesting, often free and unlimited, as a standard part of their service. This closes the security lifecycle and provides assurance that the identified risks have been successfully mitigated.

The Investment: Understanding Penetration Testing Costs and ROI in 2025

Budgeting for mobile application penetration testing requires a clear understanding of market pricing, the factors that influence cost, and the framework for justifying the investment to stakeholders.

As organizations increasingly view security as a continuous process rather than a one time event, the financial model is shifting from a focus on the "cost per test" to the "cost of a program." This reflects a move towards treating security testing as a recurring operational expense (OpEx) that aligns with modern, agile development practices, rather than a standalone capital expense (CapEx).

Decoding Pricing Models

Penetration testing vendors typically offer several pricing models, and understanding their structure is key to finding the best fit for an organization's budget and testing cadence.

• Fixed Rate / Project Based: This is the traditional model, where a vendor provides a set price for a clearly defined scope and a point in time assessment. This model offers budget predictability and is well suited for annual compliance tests or pre launch assessments.
• Retainer Based: An organization pays a recurring fee (monthly or quarterly) for access to a set number of testing days or a block of consulting hours. This model is ideal for companies that require ongoing, periodic testing or have ad hoc security needs throughout the year.
• PTaaS Subscription: This model, common among PTaaS platforms, involves an annual subscription fee. The subscription typically includes access to the vendor's technology platform, a certain number of automated scans, and a specified number of manual penetration tests or testing credits. This approach provides scalability, cost predictability, and supports a continuous testing program.
• Hourly Consulting: For highly specialized or undefined scopes, services may be billed at an hourly rate. Rates for senior, certified penetration testers typically range from $100 to over $300 per hour, reflecting their advanced expertise.

Typical Cost Benchmarks for Mobile App Pen Tests in 2025

While pricing varies based on several factors, market analysis provides a clear benchmark for budgeting purposes. In 2025, a professional, high quality mobile application penetration test typically costs between $7,000 and $35,000 per platform (i.e., for each iOS and Android version). Services advertised for significantly less than this range are often lightweight, automated vulnerability scans rather than comprehensive, manual led assessments.

Several key factors influence the final cost of an engagement:

• Complexity and Size: The primary cost driver is the complexity of the application itself. An app with numerous screens, multiple user roles, complex business logic, and a large number of features has a larger attack surface and requires more time and effort to test thoroughly.
• Scope: The scope of the test is critical. A test that is limited to the client side application on the device will cost less than a comprehensive assessment that also includes the backend APIs and server infrastructure that the app communicates with. Given that APIs are a major source of vulnerabilities, a comprehensive scope is highly recommended for meaningful risk reduction.
• Methodology: The chosen testing methodology can impact the price. A white box test, which involves a detailed source code review, is typically more time consuming and therefore can be more expensive than a black box or gray box test of the same application.
• Compliance Requirements: There is often a "compliance tax" associated with penetration tests conducted for specific regulatory mandates. Tests required for HIPAA, PCI DSS, or FedRAMP often cost significantly more than a standard assessment. This premium accounts for the rigorous documentation, specialized reporting formats, and detailed evidence required to satisfy auditors. For example, PCI DSS 11.3 penetration testing guide can clarify these specific needs.

Calculating the ROI: A Simple Equation for the Boardroom

Justifying the cost of a penetration test to non technical stakeholders and executive leadership requires framing it not as an expense, but as a high return investment in risk mitigation. The return on investment (ROI) can be demonstrated with a simple, powerful equation that compares the cost of the test to the potential cost of a data breach.

The core calculation is as follows:

ROI=Cost of Pen Test(Potential Cost of a Breach−Cost of Pen Test)​×100

Using data from 2025, this model becomes highly compelling. The average cost of a data breach in the United States is $10.22 million. The average cost of a mobile application penetration test is approximately $20,000. By investing $20,000 to prevent a single breach of average magnitude, an organization can avoid a $10.22 million loss. This represents a potential ROI of over 51,000%, or more than 500 times the initial investment. This straightforward calculation effectively communicates the immense financial value of proactive security testing and provides a clear business case for the expenditure.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) & Essential Knowledge

This section provides direct, authoritative answers to common questions about mobile application penetration testing, serving as a quick reference guide for key concepts and terminology.

What is OWASP MASVS and why should my vendor follow it?

The OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard The OWASP MASVS is the industry's gold standard for mobile app security. It provides a comprehensive, community vetted checklist of security requirements that a secure mobile app should meet. A vendor that aligns their testing methodology with the MASVS and its companion, the Mobile Application Security Testing Guide OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide (MASTG), demonstrates a commitment to a rigorous, repeatable, and thorough assessment process. This alignment ensures that the test isn't just an ad hoc collection of techniques but a systematic validation against a globally recognized benchmark, giving you higher confidence in the results.

Is PTaaS better than traditional pentesting for mobile apps?

The choice between Penetration Testing as a Service (PTaaS) and traditional, project based pentesting depends on your development speed and security goals. Traditional pentesting is a point in time assessment, ideal for annual compliance checks or pre launch validation. PTaaS, on the other hand, is a subscription based model that offers a platform for continuous testing, real time results, and deep integration with developer tools like Jira. For mobile apps developed in an agile or DevOps environment with frequent updates, PTaaS is generally better because it aligns security with the speed of development, shortens the time to fix vulnerabilities, and makes retesting seamless. This explains why continuous penetration testing matters for modern applications.

How much does a mobile pentest cost in 2025?

In 2025, a professional mobile application penetration test typically costs between $7,000 and $35,000 per platform (iOS and Android are usually priced separately). The final price depends heavily on the app's complexity (number of screens, user roles, APIs), the testing methodology (black, white, or gray box), and any specific compliance requirements (like HIPAA or PCI DSS), which can increase the cost.

How long does a mobile pentest take?

A typical mobile application penetration test takes between one to three weeks to complete, depending on the application's complexity and the scope of the engagement. A simple application might be assessed in 5-7 business days, while a complex financial or healthcare application with numerous features and user roles could require 10-15 business days or more for a thorough evaluation.

What should a good pentest report include?

A high quality penetration test report is more than just a list of vulnerabilities. It should be an actionable document that drives remediation. Key components include:

• An Executive Summary: A non technical overview for leadership that explains the key risks in terms of business impact.
• Detailed Technical Findings: For each vulnerability, the report must provide clear, step by step instructions to reproduce the issue, with evidence like screenshots.
• Proof of Concept (PoC): Demonstrates how a vulnerability can be exploited.
• Actionable Remediation Guidance: Clear, prescriptive advice on how to fix each issue, often with code examples.
• A Commitment to Retesting: The vendor should offer to retest your fixes to verify that the vulnerabilities have been successfully closed.

How do vendors test mobile APIs alongside the app?

Testing the mobile APIs is a critical part of a comprehensive assessment, as this is where most significant data breaches occur. Testers use an intercepting proxy tool like Burp Suite to capture and analyze all the network traffic between the mobile app and its backend servers. By examining these API requests and responses, they can test for a wide range of vulnerabilities, including broken authentication and authorization (like issues with OAuth security best practices, injection flaws, excessive data exposure, and other weaknesses outlined in the OWASP API Security Top 10.

Key Tools of the Trade

Professional penetration testers use a sophisticated toolkit to analyze and assess mobile applications. While the tester's skill is the most important factor, these tools are essential for modern mobile security assessments.

• Burp Suite: Developed by PortSwigger, Burp Suite is the undisputed industry standard tool for web and mobile application security testing. It acts as an intercepting proxy, sitting between the mobile application and its backend servers. This allows a tester to capture, inspect, and modify all network traffic sent by the app, making it indispensable for finding vulnerabilities in APIs, session management, and data transmission. Its Professional edition includes a powerful scanner and tools for automating customized attacks.
• Frida: Frida is a world class dynamic instrumentation toolkit that allows testers to inject custom JavaScript code into running applications on both Android and iOS. It is an incredibly powerful tool for runtime analysis and manipulation. Pentesters use Frida to hook into an application's functions in real time to bypass client side security controls like SSL certificate pinning, root or jailbreak detection, and anti debugging mechanisms. This allows them to observe the app's internal behavior and test its resilience against tampering.
• MobSF (Mobile Security Framework): MobSF is an automated, open source, all in one framework for mobile application penetration testing, malware analysis, and security assessment. It can perform both static analysis on application binaries (APK, IPA) to identify insecure code and configurations, and dynamic analysis in a runtime environment to assess behavior and network traffic. While it doesn't replace manual testing, MobSF is an excellent tool for initial reconnaissance, providing a quick and comprehensive overview of an application's security posture and identifying common vulnerabilities.

Ready to Strengthen Your Defenses?

DeepStrike’s mobile specialists run MASVS aligned tests with real time PTaaS workflows and unlimited re-tests. Let’s tailor a pilot on your highest risk app.

About the Author

Mohammed Khalil is a Cybersecurity Architect at DeepStrike, specializing in advanced penetration testing and offensive security operations. With certifications including CISSP, OSCP, and OSWE, he has led numerous red team engagements for Fortune 500 companies, focusing on cloud security, application vulnerabilities, and adversary emulation. His work involves dissecting complex attack chains and developing resilient defense strategies for clients in the finance, healthcare, and technology sectors.