Annual Pentest or PTaaS? A Realistic Cost Comparison

This question usually comes up at the same moment. After an incident, during a budget discussion, or when it becomes clear that “testing once a year” no longer aligns with the pace of change in IT environments. Companies want to understand what they are really paying for, what value they get in return, and where the blind spots remain.

Below is a practical explanation based on how we see this play out in real companies across Belgium and the Netherlands. There is no single right answer. The right choice depends on context, risk profile and maturity.

First, clarify the terms

Annual pentest

A traditional pentest is a human-led snapshot in time. Testing is performed within a clearly defined scope and period, with a strong focus on creativity, attack chaining and technical depth. The outcome is typically a report with findings and recommendations, often followed by a retest.

Continuous security validation (PTaaS)

Continuous security validation, often delivered as Pentesting as a Service (PTaaS), focuses on repeatable or ongoing validation of security controls. Attack techniques are simulated to identify misconfigurations, excessive privileges and weak controls. In a PTaaS model, this usually happens through a platform, often using credits that can be deployed flexibly.

This is not a choice between “old” and “new”. These are different tools with different strengths.

What companies really pay for: the hidden costs

When people talk about cost, they usually mean the invoice. In practice, the real differences show up elsewhere.

1. Internal time and follow-up

An annual pentest involves more than testing alone. Defining scope, aligning internally, validating findings, prioritising fixes, implementing remediation and retesting all take time from IT, security and often development teams.

With PTaaS and continuous validation, results are available more frequently and often with more context. That can reduce interpretation time, but it does require a consistent process for tracking and resolving findings.

In many companies, this internal effort outweighs the cost of external testing.

2. Window of exposure

A pentest can be technically strong and still become outdated quickly. New releases, cloud changes, or identity configuration updates can immediately alter the risk profile after the test.

Continuous security validation reduces this exposure window by testing more often. The value is not “more tests”, but fewer days where critical assets remain unvalidated.

3. Scope versus reality

A pentest always has a defined scope. Anything outside it remains unknown. Continuous validation looks more frequently and broadly at attack paths and configurations, but also has its limits. In practice, the two approaches complement each other.

Three common real-world scenarios

Case 1: frequent changes

Companies with regular releases or cloud changes often find that pentest findings become less relevant by the time remediation begins. Or new risks appear shortly after the test and remain unnoticed for months.

In these environments, PTaaS works well as a baseline, with targeted pentests added for depth and creativity.

Case 2: cloud, identity and SaaS at the core

For many companies, the biggest risks lie in identity, access rights, and configuration rather than in classic vulnerabilities. Continuous validation is particularly strong here. Pentests remain valuable for applications, external attack surfaces and custom systems, especially when used in a focused way.

Case 3: governance and accountability

For audit and management, repeatability matters. A yearly report provides a snapshot. Ongoing validation shows how security evolves over time. Pentests add realistic scenarios and attack chains that automation does not always cover.

So which option is cheaper?

Looking only at the invoice

• Annual pentest: a clear cost per engagement
• PTaaS: a predictable annual cost, often via subscription or credits

Looking at the total cost

PTaaS often becomes more attractive when:

• The environment changes frequently
• Internal security capacity is limited
• Continuous insight is more valuable than a yearly snapshot

An annual pentest remains a solid choice when:

• The scope is small and stable
• Key risks are clearly defined
• The internal team can quickly interpret and remediate findings

The role of credits in a PTaaS model

A key difference compared to traditional engagements is the use of credits.

Credits support risk-driven decisions

Not everything needs to be purchased upfront every year. Companies can allocate their budgets to where risk is highest. This quarter, the focus may be on cloud or identity. Next quarter, a phishing or social engineering test. Once a year, a deeper red team exercise. Credits allow this flexibility without restarting procurement each time.

Awareness and social engineering are not standalone activities

Phishing, vishing and physical tests are attack techniques, not HR training. They naturally fit within the same offensive framework as pentesting and red teaming. A misconfiguration combined with weak MFA and well-timed phishing is a single attack chain. A credit-based model makes this connection practical and manageable.

Red teaming does not need to be fixed every year

Many companies want red teaming, but not annually, not always at the same scale, and sometimes only for specific scenarios. Credits make it possible to run smaller, more targeted red team exercises, often combined with prior validation or pentests, lowering the threshold without lowering the bar.

What makes this approach effective in practice

Where this model delivers the most value, a few patterns are usually present:

• Pentesting and continuous validation form a shared technical foundation
• Awareness and social engineering are used deliberately, at moments where they add the most value
• Red teaming remains a high-impact instrument with clear goals and scope

Companies tend to appreciate this approach because it:

• Allows more flexible use of security budgets
• Encourages a more holistic view of security rather than isolated services
• Reduces friction when adapting security priorities during the year

Final thoughts

Choosing between an annual pentest, continuous security validation or PTaaS is not a binary decision. For many companies, the strongest approach is a combination, aligned with risk, change velocity and internal capacity.

The right choice is the one that helps you see risks sooner, understand them better and reduce them more effectively.

Three suggestions

1. Map your most critical assets and how often they change. This usually matters more than price alone.
2. Evaluate total yearly cost, including internal time and exposure, not just testing fees.
3. Consider a credit-based model if you want flexibility across pentesting, awareness, red teaming and social engineering.

Companies that align their choice between annual pentesting and PTaaS with their risks, environment and growth path build a stronger and more resilient security posture. Those who want to explore this further can discuss their options with the Sectricity Security Team.