Comparison
OmGPT vs PentestGPT
Both tools put an AI co-pilot next to your terminal, but they solve different halves of the job. PentestGPT structures a penetration test into tasks. OmGPT answers the actual technical question — payload, command, exploitation path or image forensics — without stalling on refusals. Both are for authorized, educational testing only.
Feature comparison
| Capability | OmGPT | PentestGPT |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Full-spectrum offensive security assistant | Guided penetration-testing workflow |
| Answer style | Direct commands, payloads and next steps | Step-by-step task tree |
| Refusals on technical content | No moralizing on authorized research | Frequent safety gating |
| Image / OSINT analysis | 7-pass forensic sweep with confidence scoring | Not a core feature |
| Response speed | Streaming first tokens in ~1–2s | Depends on backing model and setup |
| Setup | Sign in and chat in the browser | Local install and API keys |
| Cost to start | Free | Free code, paid model API usage |
Where OmGPT is stronger
- Answers bug bounty and CTF questions directly instead of deferring to a checklist.
- Master-level image and media OSINT with evidence, confidence and uncertainty notes.
- Alpha mode for deep, structured breakdowns with commands and alternatives.
- Nothing to install — it runs in the browser and is free to start.
Where PentestGPT fits better
- You want a rigid, reproducible task tree for a formal engagement report.
- You prefer running everything locally against your own model API keys.
Which should you choose?
Pick PentestGPT if your priority is engagement structure. Pick OmGPT if your priority is fast, unfiltered technical depth — recon ideas, payload variants, exploitation chains and image forensics — during live bug bounty or CTF work. Many people run both: PentestGPT to plan, OmGPT to actually solve the blocker.
Try OmGPT free
Educational and authorized research use only. You are responsible for how you use it.
./start_session