You don’t have to choose between BAS or automated pentesting, you shouldn’t

The article argues that BAS and automated penetration testing serve distinct but complementary purposes—BAS provides continuous, breadth-focused validation of defensive controls, while automated pentesting discovers deeper, chained attack paths—and that neither approach alone is sufficient. It outlines three myths about replacing one with the other, presents aggregated industry data showing detection gaps and open attack paths, and promotes a unified platform to normalize, deduplicate, and prioritize findings from BAS, automated pentesting, and scanners to make remediation operationally manageable.