DryRun SecurityGet a Demo

Adversarial Code Assurance

Generated July 31, 2026

Put your security requirements in charge of what ships.

DryRun combines automated adversarial review, code policies enforced through configured source-control checks, and repair guidance for supported coding agents.

DryRun and the tools in this comparison

Assurance priorities and how DryRun Security addresses them.
Your priorityDryRun SecuritySnyk CodeWhat to askSnyk EvoWhat to askGitHub Advanced SecurityWhat to askClaude SecurityWhat to askCodex SecurityWhat to askZeroPathWhat to askDepthFirstWhat to askCorgeaWhat to askAikido SecurityWhat to askSemgrepWhat to askSonarQubeWhat to askCorridorWhat to askOX SecurityWhat to askQwiet AIWhat to askSocketWhat to askWiz CodeWhat to ask
Enforce your security requirements

DryRun Custom Code Policies evaluate pull requests against your application-specific requirements in plain English.

  • PR Blocking uses required source-control checks to enforce your configured risk thresholds and policy decisions.
  • 88% of DryRun customers run in blocking mode.
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?

Shared capability

Snyk Code also supplies PR checks that block merges through branch protection. Compare how each tool expresses and tests your application-specific requirements.

Both require source-control enforcement to be configured.

DryRun PR blocking and Snyk Code PR checks. Documentation checked .

  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?

DryRun advantage

DryRun evaluates your natural-language requirement directly. GitHub’s custom CodeQL checks are authored as query files. AppSec can express the requirement in DryRun without authoring a CodeQL query.

Scope: Custom Code Policies and CodeQL custom queries. Both support application-specific checks; merge enforcement requires configuration.

DryRun Custom Code Policies and GitHub CodeQL custom queries. Documentation checked .

  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?

Different workflow

Semgrep’s documented custom-rule workflow uses YAML patterns and data-flow rules. DryRun evaluates requirements expressed in natural language.

Scope: the documented custom-rule workflow. Semgrep also provides AI-powered detection, triage and remediation.

DryRun Custom Code Policies and Semgrep custom rule authoring. Documentation checked .

  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
  • Turn an application-specific requirement into a check that blocks a merge. Show how our team changes and tests it.
  • If a review fails or times out, or another commit arrives after a passing review, can the change merge? Show the required-check result for the latest revision.
  • Show an override: who can authorize it, what is recorded, and can the exception expire?
Investigate changes in context

DryRun investigates changed code in the context of your application, beyond the diff.

  • PR reviews and DeepScan build and reuse your Security Context Graph across scans.
  • Code Security Intelligence connects findings, scan history and application knowledge for further investigation.
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?

Shared capability

Snyk Code also documents interfile analysis and source-to-sink data flows. Evaluate the quality of each tool’s investigation on your code.

Snyk’s documented interfile support excludes Ruby.

DryRun surrounding-code analysis and Snyk Code interfile analysis. Documentation checked .

  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?

Shared capability

CodeQL custom queries can also detect vulnerabilities specific to an application’s architecture or frameworks.

Evaluate both against the code paths and security requirements that matter in your application.

DryRun PR scanning and custom CodeQL analysis. Documentation checked .

  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?

Shared capability

Claude Security also uses code context and an editable threat model. Compare the evidence each produces for your application.

Hosted Claude Security supports up to eight repositories in a project, including context-only repositories.

DryRun application context and hosted Claude Security projects. Documentation checked .

  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?

DryRun advantage

DryRun automatically investigates changed code and surrounding context when a PR is opened or updated. Semgrep Multimodal’s AI-powered detection supports full scans, but does not support diff-aware PR scans.

Semgrep still supports PR scanning and AI analysis of findings. The detection-scan limitation applies specifically to Semgrep Multimodal.

DryRun PR scanning and Semgrep Multimodal AI-powered detection. Documentation checked .

  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
  • Investigate an authorization flaw across our application before merge. Show which application knowledge carries into the next scan.
  • Change an authorization rule the system previously relied on. Show what context is refreshed and what evidence the next review uses.
  • Remove access to a relevant repository or service. What can the product still conclude, and how does it expose the missing coverage?
Fix findings where developers work

DryRun gives your coding agent the findings, application context and guidance to make the repair.

  • Built-in MCP, API and skill support connects remediation to tools including Codex, Claude Code, Cursor and Windsurf.
  • DryRun independently reviews the changed code when your developer or agent submits the fix.
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?

Different workflow

GitHub can assign an alert to Copilot to generate and validate a fix. DryRun documents connections to several coding tools, including Codex, Claude Code and Cursor, so teams can use their preferred supported agent.

Scope: GitHub’s agentic autofix flow for default-branch backlog alerts, compared with DryRun’s supported agent integrations.

DryRun remediation integrations and GitHub agentic autofix. Documentation checked .

  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?

Different workflow

Claude Security hands findings to Claude Code and also exposes API/MCP access. DryRun documents several supported coding-agent integrations.

Claude also tracks fixes made outside Claude Code; the comparison covers the documented native handoffs.

DryRun supported coding tools and hosted Claude Security repair workflow. Documentation checked .

  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?

Shared capability

Semgrep also offers AI remediation guidance and Autofix pull requests. Evaluate the complete finding-to-verified-fix workflow.

Tool choice, finding coverage and verification behavior should be demonstrated on your code.

DryRun remediation and Semgrep Multimodal remediation. Documentation checked .

  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
  • Hand a finding to our preferred coding agent, verify the resulting change, and show how an incomplete fix is handled.
  • If you generate repair PRs, show acceptance, merge, and abandonment rates for the same group of repair PRs over a defined observation period. Include counts, definitions, denominators, and PRs still open.
  • Show a fix that required developer changes. What review and rework remained, and what fresh security review confirmed the original issue was fixed?
Keep evidence behind decisions

DryRun keeps findings and triage decisions in the Risk Register, before and after merge.

  • Dismissed findings retain the status, reason, decision maker and date for later review.
  • Scanner-excluded findings remain accessible separately, with supporting evidence and rationale.
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?

Shared capability

Snyk Code also lets teams ignore findings. Compare the decision record and follow-up workflow.

Ignoring a finding is not the same as fixing the underlying code.

DryRun finding tuning and Snyk Code issue management. Documentation checked .

  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?

Shared capability

GitHub also records dismissal reasons and optional comments on the alert timeline. Compare how each tool connects those decisions to the risk in your codebase.

Dismissed GitHub alerts remain available in the closed-alert list and can be reopened.

DryRun finding tuning and GitHub code scanning alert dismissal. Documentation checked .

  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?

Shared capability

Claude Security also retains finding history, resolution status and optional triage notes.

Compare how each system connects that history to your risk decisions.

DryRun Risk Register and hosted Claude Security finding history. Documentation checked .

  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?

Shared capability

Semgrep also uses triage history and explains its recommendations to ignore findings.

Semgrep surfaces those recommendations in its Findings page and PR comments.

DryRun finding tuning and Semgrep Multimodal autotriage. Documentation checked .

  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
  • Show a dismissed finding, its rationale and history. Then trace a security issue that was merged into the codebase.
  • Show a finding the scanner excluded, separately from a human dismissal. Can our team retrieve the code evidence and reason for exclusion?
  • When a later scan reverses a decision, can we retrieve and export both explanations and the code and policy versions behind them?
Full-matrix summary

Security Coverage Analysis

How Your AppSec Stack Compares to DryRun Security

Compare capabilities across code security platforms. Find coverage gaps, evaluate alternatives, and see where DryRun leads.

26 of 26 comparison criteria shown

Open a status for capability details.

Security capabilities by vendor. DryRun Security is always included.
CapabilityDryRun SecuritySnyk CodeSnyk EvoGitHub Advanced SecurityClaude SecurityCodex SecurityZeroPathDepthFirstCorgeaAikido SecuritySemgrepSonarQubeCorridorOX SecurityQwiet AISocketWiz Code
Detection Categories 1
What this tool covers
PR and repository security review, dependency analysis, secrets analysis and Terraform IaC review. Active-secret verification is attempted where supported. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5
SAST with source-code secret rules. SCA, dedicated secrets, IaC and container scanning are separate Snyk products. Source
Evo includes AI-SPM, Agentic Development Security and Continuous Offensive Security. New Agentic AppSec code-scanning and repository-review agents are experimental preview; remediation is open preview. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4
SAST, SCA and secrets. Repository and AI-application AI Scan are in public preview. Source 1 · Source 2
AI-native source-code vulnerability analysis and suggested patches. Product source
Source-code security investigation with attempted execution validation and patch review. Source
SAST, SCA, Secrets, IaC. Partial: Container.
depthfirst markets code review, supply-chain and secrets analysis, with separate runtime testing through Agentic Pentesting. Source 1 · Source 2
SAST, dependency, secrets, IaC and container scanning; AI Pentesting is a separate beta add-on. Source 1 · Source 2
SAST, SCA, Secrets, IaC, Container, DAST.
Code scanning, dependency analysis and secrets scanning; advanced AI analysis and workflows have separate scope and usage terms. Source 1 · Source 2
SAST, secrets and IaC. SCA is available through separately licensed Advanced Security. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4
Code and PR/MR security review, coding-agent guardrails and Enterprise agent-governance inventory; availability differs by module. Source 1 · Source 2
OX lists SAST, SCA, secrets/PII, IaC and containers for OX Code. Source 1 · Source 2
Harness SAST and SCA, formerly Qwiet AI: SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC and container analysis. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
SCA and supply-chain threat detection; Socket Basics adds first-party SAST, secrets and container scanning. Hosted Basics management requires Enterprise. Source 1 · Source 2
Wiz lists SAST, SCA/SBOM, secrets, IaC, malware, DSPM-in-code and code/CI posture. Rule-based SAST is listed as GA; AI SAST is public preview for Wiz Code customers. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
AI & Intelligence 9
AI-Native Architecture
Full: DryRun Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Automated adversarial review combines security agents, application context and deterministic analysis. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Snyk Code, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Snyk describes DeepCode as combining symbolic analysis and machine learning, with generative models used for explanations and fixes. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Snyk Evo, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Snyk describes Evo as combining model reasoning with its security engines; Agentic AppSec functions have distinct preview access. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: GitHub Advanced Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
CodeQL analysis plus AI Scan and AI-assisted fixes; repository AI Scan is public preview. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Claude Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
AI-native security analysis with baseline and ongoing scans. Product source · Product update
Full: Codex Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
AI-based security investigation is available through Codex Security Cloud; local tooling is a separate surface. Source
Full: ZeroPath, AI-Native Architecture. Details
AI-centered analysis combines static candidate discovery with contextual investigation and validation. Source
Full: DepthFirst, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Vendor-trained model inside an AI scanning pipeline. Marketed as model-agnostic.
Full: Corgea, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Corgea describes contextual investigation and finding triage in its AI code analysis. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Aikido Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Aggregator platform (SAST/DAST/SCA/IaC/Container) with AI features added. Breadth-first rather than AI-native.
Partial: Semgrep, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Combines deterministic analysis with AI triage and AI-powered detection; Agentic Workflows is a separate beta feature. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: SonarQube, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Static analysis and AI CodeFix, with separately licensed Hunter and Remediation agents. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Corridor, AI-Native Architecture. Details
AI-powered security review covers pull requests, existing code and coding-agent workflows. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: OX Security, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Documents static code analysis and VibeSec coding guidance; contextual AI remediation is described by OX. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Partial: Qwiet AI, AI-Native Architecture. Details
AI SAST documentation describes account-enabled IDOR and exploitability analysis; AutoFix documentation describes remediation agents. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Socket, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Socket describes LLM-based package threat analysis alongside static analysis and the scanners in Socket Basics. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Wiz Code, AI-Native Architecture. Details
Core detection is rule/pattern-based ("thousands of curated rules"); AI is a triage and remediation layer bolted on, not an AI-native code-analysis engine.
Agentic / Multi-Agent System
Full: DryRun Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
PR review and repository investigations use specialized security agents and evaluations. Source
No: Snyk Code, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Single DeepCode engine; not multi-agent
Partial: Snyk Evo, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Discovery, policy and risk agents coordinate tasks; COS supports agentic pentesting. New code-scanning and repository-review agents are experimental preview for selected customers. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Single engine (CodeQL)
Partial: Claude Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Agentic security investigation with multi-stage finding verification. A multi-agent architecture for the hosted product is not documented. Product documentation
Partial: Codex Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Single-agent autonomous pipeline (Aardvark-derived). Threat model → commit scan → sandbox validation → patch via Codex.
Full: ZeroPath, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Multi-agent scan pipeline
Partial: DepthFirst, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Claims multi-agent; implementation details not public
Partial: Corgea, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Corgea Agent supports investigations and scan workflows; multi-agent orchestration is not established. Source
Partial: Aikido Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Pentesting-bot fleet marketed as agents; focused on DAST-style probing
Partial: Semgrep, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Agentic Workflows is beta; reviewed documentation does not establish a coordinated multi-agent architecture. Source
No: SonarQube, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
AI CodeFix layer; deterministic rule engine; not multi-agent
Partial: Corridor, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Corridor Agent investigates findings and proposes repairs; coordinated multi-agent architecture is not established. Source 1 · Source 2
No: OX Security, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
(platform with VibeSec AI engine, not multi-agent)
Partial: Qwiet AI, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
AutoFix documentation describes collaborating agents for threat analysis, testing, remediation, dependencies and review. Source
No: Socket, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Not an agentic or multi-agent system. Uses AI narrowly for dependency malware detection. No orchestrated AI agents for security analysis.
Partial: Wiz Code, Agentic / Multi-Agent System. Details
Wiz describes public-preview AI SAST as Atlas-based agentic security investigation, with Green Agent remediation guidance. Source 1 · Source 2
Natural Language Policies
Full: DryRun Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
Natural-language requirements are evaluated against code context; configured findings can fail required source-control checks. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Snyk Code, Natural Language Policies. Details
Uses YAML .snyk files; not natural language policies
Partial: Snyk Evo, Natural Language Policies. Details
Natural-language requests create attribute-based AI asset policies, with human approval of policy changes. Source
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
Policies configured via CodeQL query packs and YAML workflow files, not natural language.
Partial: Claude Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
Editable threat models and policy context inform scans; dedicated merge-gate policy evaluation is not established. Setup guide · Product update
Partial: Codex Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
Editable threat model acts as project-level customization — closer to configuration than a policy engine.
Partial: ZeroPath, Natural Language Policies. Details
Custom rules can be expressed in plain English; depth and policy enforcement maturity unclear
No: DepthFirst, Natural Language Policies. Details
Not offered. Platform uses AI reasoning, not policy-driven rules.
Partial: Corgea, Natural Language Policies. Details
PolicyIQ accepts plain-English instructions and business context for detection, triage and fixes when enabled. Policy testing applies to BLAST and false-positive policies, not every policy type. Source
Partial: Aikido Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
Some NL support in custom rules; not a policy engine
Partial: Semgrep, Natural Language Policies. Details
AI can help author rules; custom detection rules use Semgrep rule syntax. Unified Policies configures finding actions. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
No: SonarQube, Natural Language Policies. Details
Quality Gates are configuration-based; no natural language policy engine
Partial: Corridor, Natural Language Policies. Details
Plain-English rules for AI coding guardrails; scope is coding tools, not full AppSec policy
No: OX Security, Natural Language Policies. Details
(no-code workflow builder for policies, but not natural language)
No: Qwiet AI, Natural Language Policies. Details
Rules and policies defined via YAML/Policy Studio, not natural language.
No: Socket, Natural Language Policies. Details
Policies configured via UI toggles and structured rules (block/warn/monitor per alert type). No natural language policy authoring.
No: Wiz Code, Natural Language Policies. Details
Unified policy engine is platform/UI-driven; plain-language interaction exists only via the MCP server for querying, not for policy authoring.
Model-Independent Verification
Full: DryRun Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
DryRun security evaluation is separate from developer or supported coding-agent repair. Changed code receives fresh review. Source
No: Snyk Code, Model-Independent Verification. Details
No separate verification layer; DeepCode findings are the final output.
No: Snyk Evo, Model-Independent Verification. Details
AI-SPM inventories AI assets; no independent verification of AI-generated code.
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
CodeQL output is the final finding; Copilot Autofix does not verify independently.
No: Claude Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Reviews repository code in a separate security-evaluation workflow. Analysis uses Anthropic models. Product source
Partial: Codex Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Sandboxed PoC execution adds a non-model validation step
No: ZeroPath, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Findings come from ZeroPath's own pipeline; no model-independent verification step.
Full: DepthFirst, Model-Independent Verification. Details
depthfirst describes code security review separately from code production and offers runtime validation through Agentic Pentesting. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Corgea, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Beagle LLM + AST runs as a single pipeline; no separate verification.
No: Aikido Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Aggregates multiple scanners but does not cross-verify AI-generated code.
Partial: Semgrep, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Deterministic rules provide a static baseline (not AI-verification)
Partial: SonarQube, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Sonar documents a separate static-analysis step using configured rules and quality gates. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Corridor, Model-Independent Verification. Details
IDE-time guardrail only; no post-generation verification layer.
No: OX Security, Model-Independent Verification. Details
VibeSec AI is a scanning layer, not an independent verification of model output.
Partial: Qwiet AI, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Secure AI Coding runs separate scans of agent-generated changes and can recheck repairs in configured environments. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Socket, Model-Independent Verification. Details
Not applicable — Socket focuses on dependencies rather than code-level AI verification.
No: Wiz Code, Model-Independent Verification. Details
No model-independent verification layer described; AI features are triage and remediation outputs, not verified findings.
Code Security Knowledge Graph
Full: DryRun Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
PR reviews and DeepScan both build and use the DryRun Security Context Graph.
No: Snyk Code, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
No knowledge graph; findings are per-scan and not cross-repo accumulated.
No: Snyk Evo, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
No formal code security knowledge graph. AI-BOM provides inventory, not a knowledge graph.
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
No knowledge graph; CodeQL databases are per-repo snapshots.
No: Claude Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Persistent project knowledge and threat models; a graph implementation is not established. Setup guide · Product update
Partial: Codex Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Editable threat model captures entry points and trust boundaries
Full: ZeroPath, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
AST call graph with annotations
Full: DepthFirst, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
depthfirst describes its Component Graph as mapping application data flows, services and dependencies. Source
Full: Corgea, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Call graph with CodeIQ enrichment
Partial: Aikido Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Learns from triage decisions; not a formal knowledge graph
Partial: Semgrep, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Assistant Memories persist triage context across scans; not a full knowledge graph
No: SonarQube, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
No code security knowledge graph; Quality Gate data is project-scoped.
No: Corridor, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
IDE-scoped; no organization-wide code security graph.
No: OX Security, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
ASPM aggregates findings; no first-party code security graph.
Full: Qwiet AI, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Documents a Code Property Graph representing program syntax, control flow and data flow for security analysis. Source
Partial: Socket, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Enterprise Full Application Reachability builds a call graph through application and dependency code to assess CVE reachability. Managed daily scans are in beta. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Wiz Code, Code Security Knowledge Graph. Details
Wiz describes code-to-cloud Security Graph context and a code-property graph in Atlas, the research basis of public-preview AI SAST. Source 1 · Source 2
Cross-repo Analysis
Full: DryRun Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
DryRun looks locally first and, when needed, automatically investigates relevant context, such as authorization logic, across repositories it has permission to access.
No: Snyk Code, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Snyk Evo, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Claude Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
Traces relationships across repositories within a project; eight-repository limit. Product documentation · Setup guide
No: Codex Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: ZeroPath, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: DepthFirst, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Corgea, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Aikido Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Semgrep, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: SonarQube, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Corridor, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: OX Security, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Qwiet AI, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Socket, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
—
No: Wiz Code, Cross-repo Analysis. Details
No cross-repository code analysis stated; correlation happens at the cloud-asset level in the Security Graph, not across code repositories.
Code Security Memory
Full: DryRun Security, Code Security Memory. Details
Retained application context and feedback inform later investigations; changed code receives fresh review. Scanner-excluded candidates and human dismissals are distinct records. Source
No: Snyk Code, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Snyk Evo, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Claude Security, Code Security Memory. Details
Retains project context and dismissal notes for subsequent reviews. Setup guide
No: Codex Security, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: ZeroPath, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: DepthFirst, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Corgea, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Aikido Security, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Semgrep, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: SonarQube, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Corridor, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: OX Security, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Qwiet AI, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Socket, Code Security Memory. Details
—
No: Wiz Code, Code Security Memory. Details
No code-security memory concept; Green Agent uses historical remediation patterns but this is not stated as a memory feature.
Custom DryRun Cyber Models
Full: DryRun Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
DryRun reports training and optimizing models for security analysis, including a security-finding classifier. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Snyk Code, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Snyk Evo, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Claude Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
Uses Anthropic's model family, including Claude Mythos. Product documentation
No: Codex Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
Full: ZeroPath, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
Custom LLMs trained on real vulnerabilities; AST + LLM hybrid
Full: DepthFirst, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
depthfirst announced dfs-large1 as a security-post-trained model in preview in July 2026. Source
Full: Corgea, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
Beagle, vendor-trained model for code security
No: Aikido Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Semgrep, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: SonarQube, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Corridor, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
Routes across frontier models (no custom-trained security model)
No: OX Security, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Qwiet AI, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Socket, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
—
No: Wiz Code, Custom DryRun Cyber Models. Details
Not available
Multi-model Architecture
Full: DryRun Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
Routes each task to the best-fit model rather than relying on a single LLM.
No: Snyk Code, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
Full: Snyk Evo, Multi-model Architecture. Details
Snyk describes Continuous Offensive Security as using multiple model types and a separate validation model. Source 1 · Source 2
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Claude Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
Mythos powers scans; some subcomponents may use other models. Product documentation
No: Codex Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: ZeroPath, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: DepthFirst, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Corgea, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Aikido Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
Full: Semgrep, Multi-model Architecture. Details
Documents model selection and managed OpenAI or AWS Bedrock configurations for AI analysis. Source 1 · Source 2
No: SonarQube, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
Full: Corridor, Multi-model Architecture. Details
Switches across frontier models (Cursor/Claude Code/etc.) per task
No: OX Security, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Qwiet AI, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Socket, Multi-model Architecture. Details
—
No: Wiz Code, Multi-model Architecture. Details
No public statement of a multi-model architecture; underlying models for AI features are not disclosed.
AI Coding Agent Security 6
Securing AI-Generated Code
Full: DryRun Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Reviews human- and AI-written code in connected, configured workflows. Source
Partial: Snyk Code, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Scans human- and AI-written source. Snyk Studio connects Code scanning to supported coding-agent workflows. Source
Partial: Snyk Evo, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
ADS and Snyk Studio trigger checks of agent-generated code in supported coding workflows. Source
Partial: GitHub Advanced Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
GitHub documents CodeQL source-code analysis within supported languages and query coverage. Source
Full: Claude Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Reviews source code for vulnerabilities and proposes patches for human review. Product source
Full: Codex Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Investigates source-code vulnerabilities and proposes patches for review, with attempted sandbox validation. Source
Partial: ZeroPath, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Positioned for AI-generated code review; scope is scanning output, not live guardrails.
Partial: DepthFirst, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Scans AI-generated code; no dedicated AI-code-review workflow.
Partial: Corgea, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Scans AI-generated code; no dedicated AI-code-review features.
Partial: Aikido Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Scans AI-generated code as part of its all-in-one platform. No dedicated AI code security workflow.
Partial: Semgrep, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Scans AI-generated code via standard rule engine. MCP integration exposes Semgrep to AI coding tools.
Partial: SonarQube, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Sonar documents gates and profiles for AI-code projects; coverage depends on languages and rules. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Corridor, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Real-time guardrails at the point of AI code generation; narrow to AI-tool scenarios.
Partial: OX Security, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
VibeSec supplies security guidance to supported coding agents through an installed integration. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Partial: Qwiet AI, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Configured Secure AI Coding hooks scan agent changes and support fix-and-revalidate workflows in supported editors. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Socket, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Socket documents MCP dependency checks and separately configured Socket Basics SAST and secret scans for first-party code. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Wiz Code, Securing AI-Generated Code. Details
Wiz documents plugin scans at configured development hooks and remediation guidance. Warnings are the default; optional block mode is described for commits and pushes. Source
AI Coding Visibility / Observability
Full: DryRun Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Code Insights with AI Assistance (beta): NL queries for risk, trends, exposure; org-wide visibility; per-repo drill-down; file-level security history
No: Snyk Code, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Standard SAST findings view; no AI-specific observability layer.
Full: Snyk Evo, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
ADS observes supported agent sessions and component use, alongside AI asset inventory; session retention is seven days. Source
No: GitHub Advanced Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Security Overview shows CodeQL alerts but no AI-code-specific visibility.
Partial: Claude Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Findings and review history; AI-authorship attribution is not established. Product documentation
Partial: Codex Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Finding tracking across commits; not AI coding observability
No: ZeroPath, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Findings dashboard only; no AI-coding observability product.
No: DepthFirst, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Scan results only; no AI-coding observability.
No: Corgea, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Findings dashboard only; no AI-coding observability.
Partial: Aikido Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Standard security dashboard; not AI-specific
Partial: Semgrep, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Org findings dashboard; not AI-specific
Partial: SonarQube, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Manual AI-project labels and assurance status; Server's automatic AI-code detection is deprecated. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Corridor, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Dashboard for AI coding activity; narrow to their guardrails product
No: OX Security, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
ASPM dashboard; no AI-coding-specific observability.
No: Qwiet AI, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Standard ASPM views; no AI-coding observability.
Partial: Socket, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Tracks dependency changes in PRs and via MCP; no visibility into AI-generated first-party code
Full: Wiz Code, AI Coding Visibility / Observability. Details
Wiz describes an AI-BOM inventory of frameworks, models and IDE extensions, including Gemini Code Assist, GitHub Copilot and Cursor. Source
Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection
Full: DryRun Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
Policy Library includes Malicious AI Agent Skills Detection: flags skills/plugins that could enable data theft, backdoors, or code execution
No: Snyk Code, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated detection for malicious AI agent skills or plugins.
Partial: Snyk Evo, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
Agent Supply Chain Security assesses supported skills for malicious behavior and other risks; discovery-only components are not security-assessed. Source
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated detection for malicious AI agent skills or plugins.
No: Claude Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
Dedicated malicious-agent-skill detection is not established in the reviewed Claude Security documentation. Product source · Product documentation · Setup guide · Product update
No: Codex Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated detection for malicious AI agent skills or plugins.
No: ZeroPath, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
No: DepthFirst, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
No: Corgea, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
No: Aikido Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated MCP/agent skill scanning; general SAST/DAST only
No: Semgrep, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated detection for AI agent skills or MCP-skill supply-chain risks.
No: SonarQube, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
Partial: Corridor, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
Monitors AI agent behavior for policy violations; not dedicated skill scanning
No: OX Security, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
No: Qwiet AI, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No dedicated AI-agent skill scanning.
Full: Socket, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
Socket offers experimental skills.sh scanning for malicious code and instruction risks. Enterprise access requires contacting Socket; custom-skill support remains planned. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Wiz Code, Malicious AI Agent Skill Detection. Details
No specific detection of malicious AI-agent skills; closest capability is general malware scanning in the codebase.
MCP Integration
Full: DryRun Security, MCP Integration. Details
DryRun Insights MCP server: security summaries, PR analysis, trend monitoring, file-level history; connects via Direct HTTP, Claude Shortcuts, or mcp-remote
Full: Snyk Code, MCP Integration. Details
The local Snyk CLI MCP server exposes Code scanning to compatible coding assistants. Source
Partial: Snyk Evo, MCP Integration. Details
The hosted Evo MCP server exposes inventory, relationships, issues and selected policy tools to authorized assistants. Source
No: GitHub Advanced Security, MCP Integration. Details
GHAS has no MCP server.
Full: Claude Security, MCP Integration. Details
Claude Security connector exposes projects and findings through MCP. Product update
Partial: Codex Security, MCP Integration. Details
MCP support in Codex agent; not a documented security-product integration
Full: ZeroPath, MCP Integration. Details
Open-source MCP server (2025)
No: DepthFirst, MCP Integration. Details
Not offered.
Full: Corgea, MCP Integration. Details
MCP integration confirmed on marketing pages
Full: Aikido Security, MCP Integration. Details
MCP documented as an expansion pack
Full: Semgrep, MCP Integration. Details
Documents MCP integration for AI coding workflows. Source
Full: SonarQube, MCP Integration. Details
GA MCP server exposes analysis, issues and quality gates; some tools require separate subscriptions. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Full: Corridor, MCP Integration. Details
MCP server is core to the product
Partial: OX Security, MCP Integration. Details
MCP server provides security data and selected actions in Early Access. Source
No: Qwiet AI, MCP Integration. Details
Notable gap vs. competitors; no MCP server.
Full: Socket, MCP Integration. Details
Public hosted and local MCP options expose dependency security scores to coding assistants. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Wiz Code, MCP Integration. Details
Wiz documents MCP security-data queries and Code remediation workflows, including pull-request creation. Account permissions and entitlements apply. Source 1 · Source 2
Continuous Enforcement Layer
Full: DryRun Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured PR findings fail checks; required source-control protections enforce the customer’s merge policy. Source
Full: Snyk Code, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
PR checks return security status; configured source-control branch rules can block merges when required checks fail. Source
Full: Snyk Evo, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured ADS policies can govern agent actions before execution in supported coding-agent workflows. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: GitHub Advanced Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured code-scanning rulesets can block merges; AI Scan PR findings remain advisory. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Claude Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Automatically scans changes; native merge blocking is not established. Product source
No: Codex Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Commit-level scanning is continuous in principle (Aardvark-style), but Codex Security is still research preview with per-task cost. Selective rather than universal.
Full: ZeroPath, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
PR checks can fail above configured thresholds and be required by source-control merge protections. Source
Full: DepthFirst, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
PR-time scanning with auto-fix.
Full: Corgea, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Corgea lists configurable PR/CI blocking rules on Scale. Merge prevention also requires source-control enforcement. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Aikido Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured severity thresholds fail PR checks, including enabled Deep Review; source-control rules must enforce the check. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Semgrep, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured blocking findings can fail CI; source-control requirements determine whether a failing check prevents merge. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: SonarQube, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Quality gates can block PR merges or fail CI when required checks are configured. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Partial: Corridor, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured GitHub severity policy can fail a status check; branch protection must require it to block merge. GitLab merge-policy enforcement is documented as forthcoming. Source
Full: OX Security, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Configured pipeline workflows can block execution when security conditions are met. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Qwiet AI, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Build rules can fail CI checks; required branch checks enforce configured merge controls. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Socket, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Policies can fail PR checks and enforce package decisions through Socket Firewall. Merge blocking requires the Socket check to be required. Source
Partial: Wiz Code, Continuous Enforcement Layer. Details
Wiz documents configurable commit/push and repository/CI security controls. Plugin warnings are the default; blocking requires configuration. Source 1 · Source 2
Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered)
Full: DryRun Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Flat subscription pricing based on team size. Usage pricing applies to DeepScan product.
Full: Snyk Code, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Seat-based subscription. Predictable.
Partial: Snyk Evo, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Enterprise credits cover AI-SPM by contributor-day, coding-agent security by machine-day, and COS pentesting by assessment. Source
Partial: GitHub Advanced Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Code Security: $30; Secret Protection: $19 per active committer/month (USD). Base-plan and selected AI usage charges also apply. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
No: Claude Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Enterprise subscription and an eligible Claude Code seat required. Usage is billed at direct token cost, with no additional Claude Security platform fee; spend limits are available. Setup and billing
No: Codex Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Cloud scans use token billing; Security Review uses Codex allowance or credits. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: ZeroPath, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Subscription pricing.
Full: DepthFirst, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Subscription pricing.
Full: Corgea, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Subscription pricing.
Full: Aikido Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Flat platform pricing with published tiers.
Full: Semgrep, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Per-contributor pricing; free tier for OSS and small teams.
Full: SonarQube, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Per-LOC or per-user pricing (SonarQube Server / Cloud).
Full: Corridor, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Subscription pricing.
Full: OX Security, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Enterprise subscription.
Full: Qwiet AI, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Developer-based SAST/SCA licensing; the native Harness STO integration also requires an STO license. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Socket, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Free and per-developer plans, with monthly or annual billing, quotas, seat minimums and custom Enterprise pricing. Source
No: Wiz Code, Per-Review Economics (predictable vs. usage-metered). Details
Sold as annual code-license SKU (AWS Marketplace lists ~$58,500 for 100 code licenses / 12 months); no per-review or per-PR pricing.
Code Security Intelligence 3
Business Logic Flaw Detection
Full: DryRun Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Investigates authorization and business-logic vulnerabilities such as IDOR and tenant-isolation failures. Source
No: Snyk Code, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Pattern-based engine with limited business-logic reasoning. DryRun's benchmark measured 10/26 on a seeded set — methodology disclosed in the report.
No: Snyk Evo, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Covers AI prompt injection; not traditional business logic
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Limited to CodeQL query coverage
Full: Claude Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Documents detection of complex logic and access-control vulnerabilities. Product source
Full: Codex Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Threat-model-guided investigation can examine logic and authorization vulnerabilities. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: ZeroPath, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Vendor claims 50%+ of critical findings are business logic; unverified
Partial: DepthFirst, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Marketed as attacker-style reasoning for IDOR and auth bypass
Partial: Corgea, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
BLAST module for broken auth, IDOR, transaction tampering
Partial: Aikido Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
AI pentesting bots probe for IDOR and auth bypass; DAST-style, not SAST-level
Partial: Semgrep, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
AI-powered detection investigates business-logic risks in full scans, including non-default branches. It does not support diff-aware PR scans. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
No: SonarQube, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Rule-based, not AI-reasoning based; no business logic detection
Partial: Corridor, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Contextual PR reviews evaluate code against security guardrails including authentication and access control. Source 1 · Source 2
No: OX Security, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
(pattern-based scanning, not logic-aware)
Partial: Qwiet AI, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Account-enabled AI SAST documents IDOR checks and exploitability analysis; AI Findings must be enabled for scans. Source
No: Socket, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
Not a first-party code analysis tool. SAST module (Semgrep wrapper) finds pattern-based issues only. No business logic, IDOR, or auth bypass detection.
No: Wiz Code, Business Logic Flaw Detection. Details
No product claim of business-logic flaw detection; findings are CWE- and rule-based with cloud-context prioritization.
Git Behavioral Analysis
Full: DryRun Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
DeepScan uses Git Behavioral Graphs for churn, temporal coupling, knowledge decay, anomalies and intent analysis. Source
No: Snyk Code, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Snyk Evo, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: GitHub Advanced Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Claude Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Can read Git history during security investigation; dedicated churn, temporal-coupling, knowledge-decay, temporal-anomaly, or intent analysis is not documented. Product source
No: Codex Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: ZeroPath, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: DepthFirst, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Corgea, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Aikido Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Semgrep, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: SonarQube, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Corridor, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: OX Security, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Qwiet AI, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Socket, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
No: Wiz Code, Git Behavioral Analysis. Details
Not available
Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending
Full: DryRun Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Risk Register with Critical/High/Medium/Low severity; AI Assistance for Insights with NL queries, trend monitoring, and 30-day window analysis
Partial: Snyk Code, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Enterprise reports track Code issue exposure and risk trends over time. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Snyk Evo, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Reporting Agent (GA) generates customizable insights; AI risk scoring across all agents
Partial: GitHub Advanced Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Security Overview tracks detection and remediation trends across accessible repositories' default branches. Source
Partial: Claude Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Baseline and ongoing scans with fix tracking; broader risk-trend analytics are not established. Setup guide · Product update
Partial: Codex Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Repository baselines, commit monitoring and finding-state summaries are documented. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: ZeroPath, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Maintains branch-aware findings and security-posture reporting. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: DepthFirst, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Security analytics; burn-down tracking; time-to-remediate
Partial: Corgea, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Dashboards with scan history
Full: Aikido Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Reports trends in open, new, handled and overdue findings over time. Source
Full: Semgrep, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Dashboard with findings by severity, priority scores, trend tracking
Full: SonarQube, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Tracks project measures, scan history and quality-gate changes; history retention is configured. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Corridor, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Dashboard focus is on IDE guardrail usage; no repo-level risk trending.
Full: OX Security, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Dashboard tracks severity and issue-state trends over time; coverage depends on connected sources and completed scans. Source
Full: Qwiet AI, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Dashboard shows findings over time and week-to-week changes; scan comparisons identify new and resolved findings. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Socket, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Default-branch alerts and analytics track supply-chain risk and triage trends. Historical analytics require Business or Enterprise; retention varies by plan. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Wiz Code, Continuous Baseline & Risk Trending. Details
Wiz describes finding retesting and automatic resolution of confirmed fixes across public-preview AI SAST scans. Source
Workflow & Supply Chain 2
SCM Support
Full: DryRun Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub and GitLab (native apps with OAuth)
Full: Snyk Code, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure Repos integrations are documented; deployment options and feature support vary. Source
Full: Snyk Evo, SCM Support. Details
Evo imports repositories through supported Snyk Workspaces integrations or CLI uploads; SCM and feature support vary. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: GitHub Advanced Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub native; Azure Repos support uses the separate GitHub Advanced Security for Azure DevOps Services offering. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Claude Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub and GitHub Enterprise Server through the app; other Git providers through repository tokens. Setup guide
Partial: Codex Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub only.
Full: ZeroPath, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps
Partial: DepthFirst, SCM Support. Details
GitHub (primary); limited other SCM support
Full: Corgea, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket
Full: Aikido Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps
Full: Semgrep, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps
Full: SonarQube, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps integrations; individual agent products have narrower support. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Corridor, SCM Support. Details
GitHub PR and GitLab MR reviews are documented. Required merge-policy checks are documented for GitHub; GitLab merge-policy enforcement is forthcoming. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: OX Security, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure Repos; hosting options and permissions vary by connector. Source
Full: Qwiet AI, SCM Support. Details
GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps integrations; PR and CI capabilities vary by provider. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Socket, SCM Support. Details
GitHub on all plans; GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps and self-hosted source control on Enterprise. Source
Partial: Wiz Code, SCM Support. Details
Wiz lists source-code connectors for GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Bitbucket Cloud and Bitbucket Data Center; scan and PR-feature parity is not established. Source 1 · Source 2
SBOM / AI-BOM Generation
Full: DryRun Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Provides dependency SBOMs and an AI-BOM inventory. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Snyk Code, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
SBOM via Snyk Open Source CLI (SPDX/CycloneDX). AI-BOM experimental via Snyk Labs.
Full: Snyk Evo, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
The AI-BOM CLI generates CycloneDX 1.6 JSON inventories of supported AI components and relationships. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: GitHub Advanced Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
GitHub documents dependency SBOM generation in SPDX JSON. Source
No: Claude Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
SBOM and AI-BOM export are not established in the reviewed Claude Security documentation. Product source · Product documentation · Setup guide · Product update
No: Codex Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
No SBOM or AI-BOM generation capability.
Full: ZeroPath, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
SBOM generation; SCA dependency inventory
No: DepthFirst, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Not offered.
No: Corgea, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
No SBOM or AI-BOM generation capability.
Full: Aikido Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
CycloneDX SBOM generation; container image SBOM
Full: Semgrep, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Semgrep Supply Chain exports CycloneDX SBOMs. AI-BOM generation is not established by that export. Source
Partial: SonarQube, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Sonar documents SPDX and CycloneDX SBOM export with Advanced Security; AI-BOM generation is unverified. Source 1 · Source 2
No: Corridor, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
No SBOM or AI-BOM generation capability.
Full: OX Security, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
OX Code builds a dependency SBOM from connected source, pipeline and container data. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Qwiet AI, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Generates application dependency SBOMs with CycloneDX and SPDX export; VEX export is also documented. Source
Partial: Socket, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Generates CycloneDX SBOMs; hosted SBOM features are available on Business and Enterprise plans. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Full: Wiz Code, SBOM / AI-BOM Generation. Details
Wiz describes software-component SBOMs and an AI-BOM inventory of frameworks, models and IDE extensions. Code-to-cloud coverage depends on the connected products. Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Reporting & Compliance 1
Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG)
Partial: DryRun Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Findings and reporting include CWE/OWASP context and evidence useful to compliance review. Source 1 · Source 2
Full: Snyk Code, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
CWE and OWASP mappings and reports; PCI DSS 4.0.1 reporting is Enterprise Early Access. Source 1 · Source 2
Partial: Snyk Evo, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
AI risk maps to OWASP LLM and Agentic guidance, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI taxonomies. Source
Partial: GitHub Advanced Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
CodeQL suites mapped to CWE; SOC 2 / compliance reporting lighter.
No: Claude Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Findings include CWE identifiers where applicable. Mapping to the listed compliance frameworks is not documented. Product documentation
No: Codex Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Not a compliance product.
Full: ZeroPath, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
ZeroPath lists Enterprise policy packs for SOC 2, HIPAA, PCI DSS and GDPR, plus custom compliance reports. Source
No: DepthFirst, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
No dedicated compliance reporting.
Partial: Corgea, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
OWASP / CWE mapping.
Full: Aikido Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Documents control-coverage reports for SOC 2, ISO 27001, OWASP, NIST 800-53 and PCI DSS, among other named frameworks. Source
Partial: Semgrep, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Rules can include CWE and OWASP metadata; full mapping to every named compliance framework is not established. Source
Full: SonarQube, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Sonar documents Server Enterprise+ reports mapping findings to OWASP, PCI DSS, STIG ASD and MISRA; coverage depends on active rules and language. Source
Full: Corridor, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Maps AI coding policy to enterprise compliance frameworks.
Full: OX Security, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
OX’s published example links findings to SOC 2 CC8.1, NIST SA-11 and ISO 27001 A.8.28. Source
Full: Qwiet AI, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Exports OWASP and CWE reports, plus PCI DSS reports scoped to application-security requirements. Source
Partial: Socket, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
License compliance for dependencies.
Partial: Wiz Code, Compliance Framework Mapping (SOC 2, PCI, NIST, OWASP, MISRA, STIG). Details
Documents code/development controls for NIST SSDF and OWASP; broader SOC 2 and PCI coverage belongs to platform cloud frameworks. Source
Market Feedback (G2) 4
G2 Rating / Review Count
4.9/5 (19 reviews) — g2.com/products/dryrun-security/reviews
Snyk platform: 4.5/5 from 136 G2 reviews, observed October 31, 2026 (Central). This is not a Code-only rating. Source
Not applicable: Snyk Evo, G2 Rating / Review Count. Details
G2 lists Snyk Evo AI-SPM separately with zero reviews; no aggregate rating is available. Source
GitHub platform reviews are not a GHAS-specific rating. Source
Product-specific Claude Security review evidence not verified.
Codex Security-specific G2 rating and review count not verified. Source 1 · Source 2
4.5/5 (11 reviews) — g2.com/products/zeropath/reviews
No G2 reviews
No G2 reviews — g2.com/products/corgea/reviews
4.6/5 (139 reviews) — g2.com/products/aikido-security/reviews
4.6/5 (55 reviews) — g2.com/products/semgrep/reviews
G2: 4.4/5 from 155 reviews, observed October 31, 2026 (Central). Source
No customer star rating was shown on the Corridor G2 listing in the November 1, 2026 UTC source observation. Source
G2 snapshot: 4.8/5 from 51 OX Security reviews, observed October 31, 2026 (Central). Source
Legacy Qwiet AI G2 snapshot: 4.8/5 from 3 reviews, with reviews dated 2023–2024. Source 1 · Source 2
Not applicable: Socket, G2 Rating / Review Count. Details
4.6/5 (9 reviews)
No Wiz Code-specific G2 rating or review count is cited here. The parent Wiz rating covers the broader platform. Source 1 · Source 2
Notable G2 Criticisms (Attributed)
"I do somewhat wish there were more customization options for tuning the analyzers, but that seems to be in the works." — Kyle R. (g2.com/products/dryrun-security/reviews)
Prateek J. described SAST false positives and limited finding context in an April 23, 2026 Snyk platform review. Paraphrased from an incentivized G2 review. Source
Not applicable: Snyk Evo, Notable G2 Criticisms (Attributed). Details
The separate Snyk Evo AI-SPM G2 listing has no reviews from which to attribute criticism. Source
No GHAS-specific criticism is cited here. Source
Product-specific Claude Security review evidence not verified.
No G2 reviews available
"UI keeps changing very fast since the product is changing rapidly." — Manisha A., Relationship Manager, Small-Business (g2.com/products/zeropath/reviews)
No G2 reviews available
No G2 reviews available
"Sometimes the recommendations need to be more contextual or suggest more targeted fixes for specific coding patterns." — Mohamed A., CTO, Small-Business (g2.com/products/aikido-security/reviews)
"Custom rules require learning Semgrep's pattern syntax, which has a learning curve. Some teams found it challenging to write effective rules without dedicated training." — Information Security Analyst, Enterprise (g2.com/products/semgrep/reviews)
Kewin M. reports setup effort and time spent dismissing findings that do not fit the codebase (G2, August 4, 2026; paraphrase). Source
No G2 reviews available
Dudi E., Co-Founder and CEO, described an initial learning curve from the many options and analytics (G2, December 8, 2024). Source
Brooks S., CEO, criticized CLI-only custom-policy configuration (G2, September 19, 2024). Source
Not applicable: Socket, Notable G2 Criticisms (Attributed). Details
Dashboard UI described as slow to load — unnamed G2 reviewer (https://www.g2.com/products/socket-socket/reviews)
Matvey N. criticized licensing clarity for both Wiz Cloud and Wiz Code in a parent-Wiz G2 review dated May 22, 2026. Source
Notable G2 Praise (Attributed)
"DryRun goes far beyond what rule-based SAST tools offer. It identifies logic-level flaws that others miss entirely — especially in AI-generated code. This is the kind of tool that makes you rethink what application security testing should look like." — Jabez A., Director, Product Security Architecture, Enterprise (g2.com/products/dryrun-security/reviews)
Gunther C. praised easy setup and GitHub Actions integration in an April 7, 2026 Snyk platform review. Paraphrased from an incentivized G2 review. Source
Not applicable: Snyk Evo, Notable G2 Praise (Attributed). Details
The separate Snyk Evo AI-SPM G2 listing has no reviews from which to attribute praise. Source
No GHAS-specific praise is cited here. Source
Product-specific Claude Security review evidence not verified.
No G2 reviews available
"Finds serious security vulnerabilities including business logic bugs that other scanners miss." — Yaacov T., CTO, Small-Business (g2.com/products/zeropath/reviews)
No G2 reviews available
No G2 reviews available
"Aikido Security is very user-friendly and easy to navigate, even for team members who are not deeply specialized in security. It helps us quickly identify and manage vulnerabilities in one place." — Fabio S., COO/CISO, Small-Business (g2.com/products/aikido-security/reviews)
"Semgrep is lightweight, very fast compared to traditional SAST tools, and integrates smoothly into CI/CD pipelines. The ability to write custom rules makes it flexible for different coding standards and compliance needs." — Ivo M., Information Security Analyst, Enterprise (g2.com/products/semgrep/reviews)
Shrey S. praises Community Edition's Jenkins integration and quality-gate checkpoints (G2, February 17, 2026; paraphrase). Source
No G2 reviews available
Dudi E. praised lifecycle visibility, usability and DevOps integration (G2, December 8, 2024). Source
Brooks S. praised CI/CD documentation and responsive support (G2, September 19, 2024). Source
Not applicable: Socket, Notable G2 Praise (Attributed). Details
'I love the approach Socket has taken towards solving open source security problems with their subjective analysis and the 70 plus signals' — unnamed G2 reviewer (https://www.g2.com/products/socket-socket/reviews)
No Wiz Code-specific G2 praise is cited here. Source 1 · Source 2
Common G2 Complaint Themes
UI/portal speed; desire for more analyzer customization (g2.com/products/dryrun-security/reviews)
April 2026 Snyk platform reviews describe triage noise and pricing concerns. These are individual experiences, not measured prevalence among Code customers. Source
Not applicable: Snyk Evo, Common G2 Complaint Themes. Details
No review themes are available from the zero-review Snyk Evo AI-SPM G2 listing. Source
No GHAS-specific complaint themes are cited here. Source
Product-specific Claude Security review evidence not verified.
Learning curve; expensive higher tiers; context hallucinations (g2.com/products/openai/reviews)
No G2 reviews to cite — zero public customer validation on G2 despite claiming enterprise customers
Too new for G2 feedback
Too new for G2 feedback
SAST depth not enterprise-grade; some integrations still maturing (g2.com/products/aikido-security/reviews)
Complex custom rule writing; noise without proper configuration; pricing for Pro rules (g2.com/products/semgrep/reviews)
Review examples cite setup/rule tuning and triage effort (Shrey S.; Kewin M., G2). Source 1 · Source 2
Too new for G2 feedback
Historical reviewers cited onboarding complexity and integration friction; Tom B. reported language gaps in November 2024. Current prevalence is unverified. Source
Three 2023–2024 reviews mention policy/UI configuration limits and reporting gaps; this small historical sample does not establish current prevalence. Source
Not applicable: Socket, Common G2 Complaint Themes. Details
Limited remediation guidance vs. Snyk; opaque package signals and hard-to-adapt policies (per Endor Labs competitive analysis); dashboard performance; behavioral analysis depth varies by ecosystem (strongest for JS/TS, Python)
Parent Wiz feedback is not a Wiz Code-only review sample. Source
Monthly code reviews
600K+
Vulnerability detection accuracy
Industry-leading
Fewer CVEs to review than off-the-shelf SCA tools
92%
G2 rating — 19 reviews
4.9/5

Customer Reviews

What security teams are saying

From a customer conversation

Honestly, we don’t get false positives anymore. It’s just not a problem.
Matthew Kuritz The Farmer’s Dog
DryRun Security AI had a better grasp of the code’s business intent and overall structure than most previous auditors.
Roger W. Expert Software Engineer, Enterprise
As a security company, we have come to rely on it.
Jonathan C. CTO
AppSec signal, not noise: DryRun catches the ‘Greeks in the horse’ PRs before they ship.
Todd B. CISO
It’s hard to imagine pushing code at speed without DryRun Security now.
DryRun Security Customer

Rated 4.9/5 on G2High Performer in SAST, Spring 2026

Read our reviews on G2
  • SOC2 Type II Certified
  • Black Hat USA 2024 Finalist
  • G2 High Performer — SAST Spring 2026

Ready to see DryRun Security in action?

Get a personalized demo and see how DryRun compares on your codebase.

Get a Demo

G2 High Performer — SAST Spring 2026