One queue or many: why scanner orchestration matters more when agents do the work

Why one queue matters for agents

Most organizations run more than one scanner: a SAST tool, an SCA tool, a secrets scanner, a container scanner, sometimes two of each after a merger or a team's own choice. Each produces its own list. A person can read across several lists. A triage agent or a fix agent works best on one list, where the same issue reported by two tools appears once, with all the context attached.

Without that, an agent can fix the same issue twice, rank a duplicate above an original, or never see a finding that lives in a tool it cannot read.

What vendors describe

• Legit Security. Runs its own SAST, SCA and secrets detection, orchestrates existing scanners and de-duplicates their findings, and scores risk with business and exposure context. Its AWS Marketplace listing also says it consolidates findings from multiple AppSec tools.
• Cycode. Native SAST, SCA, secrets, container and IaC scanning, plus 100+ integrations through ConnectorX.
• Apiiro. AI SAST and AI SCA plus 100+ tool integrations.
• OX Security. OX Code covers SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC, containers and APIs, with ASPM correlation across them.
• GitHub Advanced Security. CodeQL and dependency review, plus third-party extensibility: findings from other scanning tools can be centralized in code scanning through SARIF upload.

The other four vendors describe broad native scanning: Snyk across SAST, SCA, IaC and containers; Semgrep across Code, Supply Chain and Secrets; Aikido Security with SAST, AI SAST, SCA and secrets on every plan, plus a CI API that accepts Checkov SARIF and Syft SBOM uploads; Endor Labs with AI SAST, SCA, containers and secrets, plus an SBOM Hub that imports external SBOMs. On the pages we read, they do not say they ingest other scanners' findings in general. That does not mean they cannot; it means a buyer should ask.

How we score it

Scanner coverage and orchestration carries 10% of our score. Legit Security scores 10, Cycode 9, Apiiro, OX Security and GitHub Advanced Security 8, and the vendors with native scanning only 7. A platform with fewer native scanners but a clean merged queue can score as well as one with many scanners and no merge.

Questions to ask

1. Which of our current scanners can you ingest today, by name?
2. How do you decide that two findings are the same issue?
3. When we fix a finding through your agent, does the status update in the original tool?
4. Can the triage and fix agents act on ingested findings, or only on your own?

The last question matters most. An orchestration layer that only displays other tools' findings helps people; one that lets its agents act on them helps the agents too.

When it matters less

A team that runs one vendor's scanners for everything has less to merge. For that team, native coverage and the quality of the agents matter more than orchestration, and the agent risk calculator lets you lower the weight.

A quick test in a trial

Pick one issue that two of your current scanners both report, for example a vulnerable dependency found by an SCA tool and by a container scanner. Load both tools' results into the platform you are trialling and check three things: does the issue appear once or twice, does it keep the context from both sources, and when you fix it, does the status close in both places? The answers take an afternoon to collect and say more about orchestration than any integration count.