Annual vs Continuous Penetration Testing
Updated: 2 days ago
More frequent testing can help. But frequency alone does not tell you the quality of the assessment. What are you actually paying for?
Michael Jepson | Co-Founder, Technical Director & Lead Penetration Tester
How often should a business have a penetration test?
Every year? Every month? Continuously?
If budget were no object, I'd welcome more regular testing, especially when an application changes. But good hands-on testing takes time, and most businesses need to make sensible decisions about where to spend their money.
Before looking at how often a service runs, I’d want to know what it actually includes.
Three services that are easy to confuse
Penetration test is usually an assessment of an agreed scope, with a qualified tester investigating weaknesses and reporting the results they find. It gives you a picture of security at that point in time. It doesn’t mean everything will stay secure as the application changes.
Vulnerability scanning can run much more frequently and can be useful for picking up common weaknesses and known issues. It can help between deeper assessments, as long as it’s set up properly and someone follows up on the results.
Continuous penetration testing can mean different things, and you’ll sometimes see it marketed alongside penetration testing as a service, or PTaaS. Some providers include regular hands-on testing, checks after releases and ongoing retesting. Others focus more on automated scanning, with manual testing available at set intervals or on request.
That’s why I’d look past the label and ask what’s included, how often a tester gets involved and what triggers a fresh assessment.
What does continuous actually buy you?
A dashboard that updates every day doesn't necessarily mean a qualified tester is manually digging into your application every day.
If you're comparing providers, I'd ask:
How much hands-on testing is included, and when does it happen?
What qualifications and relevant experience do the testers have?
What user roles, APIs and application features will they test?
What happens when we add a major feature or a new API?
Does someone manually check the findings, and what retesting is included?
Will they explain what’s excluded and anything they couldn’t access or test?
Some services will have clear answers to all of these, but meaningful, ongoing hands-on testing comes at a cost. In my experience, the services offering substantial manual testing aren't necessarily the most budget-friendly. That doesn't mean they're poor value, but I'd want to understand exactly what I'm paying for before being won over by a polished platform.
I’d also read vendor-sponsored surveys with a questioning eye: who was asked, how were the questions framed, and what do the results actually show? Independent evidence and a clear explanation of the service carry more weight with me.
Is once a year enough?
For many applications, I wouldn’t rely on an annual test alone. A test in January won’t cover a vulnerable feature added in February. Applications change, dependencies change, and new attack techniques emerge.
I’d want meaningful security testing before a new application goes live and after major changes to how it works, how users sign in or how it’s built. Applications handling sensitive data or changing frequently may need more regular hands-on testing too.
Between penetration tests, regular automated checks, secure development and keeping on top of vulnerabilities, all help. The NCSC's guidance on continual security testing is a useful reference for how specialist testing and repeatable automated checks can work together.
What if the budget only stretches so far?
I'm probably biased, but this comes from my own testing experience. If an application is critical to the business and hasn't had a thorough assessment, I'd generally put the budget towards a well-scoped penetration test by a qualified tester before buying a generic scanner subscription for the year.
I've found serious weaknesses that routine scanning was unlikely to identify. That doesn't make scanning a poor investment. If you've recently had a thorough assessment and need to keep on track of known vulnerabilities, a good scanning service might be the more useful next purchase.
Where the budget allows, I’d combine regular specialist testing with routine automated checks and further testing after significant changes.
Think about security before the application is built
This is another area I feel strongly about. I’ve tested expensive applications from established development suppliers that still had basic security weaknesses. Spending more on development doesn’t automatically mean you’re getting secure software.
If you’re commissioning an application, ask about security early. Who fixes vulnerabilities found during testing? Are those fixes included in the price? What happens if a serious issue turns up just before launch?
Agree who’s responsible and how quickly issues need to be addressed before signing the contract.
The UK Government's voluntary Software Security Code of Practice is a useful starting point for those conversations.
This is another area I feel strongly about. I’ve tested expensive applications from established development suppliers that still had basic security weaknesses. Spending more on development doesn’t automatically mean you’re getting secure software.
If you’re commissioning an application, ask about security early. Who fixes vulnerabilities found during testing? Are those fixes included in the price? What happens if a serious issue turns up just before launch?
Agree on who’s responsible and how quickly issues need to be addressed before signing the contract.
My view
More frequent testing can be valuable, especially when an application changes regularly. But the schedule alone tells you very little about how thoroughly it's being tested. The right frequency depends on the risks involved, how often things change and, realistically, the available budget.
At AppTest Direct, our core penetration testing services have clearly defined scope and upfront pricing. Our tests aren't tied to an annual cycle. Whether businesses need testing quarterly, every six months, annually or following significant changes, we can accommodate their requirements. For larger applications, we can review the scope, discuss where testing should focus and agree on additional hands-on testing time where needed. Every engagement still requires scope validation and appropriate authorisation before work begins.
Whether you choose periodic penetration testing, a continuous service or a combination of both, ask what will actually be tested, who will do the work and whether the results will help you make meaningful security improvements. That's what I'd base the decision on.
