Static Code Analysis

Now pick what to compare gosec against.

gosec clear

Open a name for its full profile

Aikido SAST
Scored
Aikido Security · Freemium · 5 capabilities in this domain · 4.22 / 5
Compare →
Snyk Code
Scored
Snyk · Freemium · 5 capabilities in this domain · 4.07 / 5
Compare →
GitHub Code Security
Scored
GitHub · Freemium · 4 capabilities in this domain · 4.05 / 5
Compare →
Semgrep Code
Scored
Semgrep · Freemium · 5 capabilities in this domain · 3.95 / 5
Compare →
Veracode Static Analysis
Scored
Veracode · Commercial · 6 capabilities in this domain · 3.90 / 5
Compare →
SonarQube
Scored
SonarSource · Freemium · 3 capabilities in this domain · 3.89 / 5
Compare →
Checkmarx One SAST
Scored
Checkmarx · Commercial · 6 capabilities in this domain · 3.88 / 5
Compare →
OpenText Fortify Static Code Analyzer
Scored
OpenText · Commercial · 3 capabilities in this domain · 3.69 / 5
Compare →
Coverity
Scored
Black Duck Software · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain · 3.56 / 5
Compare →
Klocwork
Scored
Perforce · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain · 3.48 / 5
Compare →
HCL AppScan Source
Scored
HCL Software · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain · 3.34 / 5
Compare →
Opengrep
Scored
Opengrep Project · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain · 3.06 / 5
Compare →
Semgrep Community Edition
Scored
Semgrep · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain · 2.96 / 5
Compare →
Brakeman
Scored
Brakeman Project · Free · 1 capabilities in this domain · 2.85 / 5
Compare →
Find Security Bugs
Scored
SpotBugs Community · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain · 2.66 / 5
Compare →
gosec
Scored
securego · Open Source · 1 capabilities in this domain · 2.66 / 5
selected
Bandit
Scored
Python Code Quality Authority (PyCQA) · Open Source · 1 capabilities in this domain · 2.59 / 5
Compare →
GitHub Advanced Security for Azure DevOps
Capabilities only
Microsoft · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Mobile Security Framework (MobSF)
Capabilities only
MobSF Project · Open Source · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
NowSecure Platform
Capabilities only
NowSecure · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →

In Static Code Analysis

Aikido SAST

Aikido Security · Static Code Analysis

Close ×

FreemiumCompany4.22 / 5

Aikido scans source with the Opengrep engine it initiated and maintains, triages the results with a rules-plus-reasoning layer, and offers one-click fixes in the IDE and on pull requests.

Website ↗

What it does11 capabilities · 10 at full coverage

10 of 11 at full coverage, 8 through a named feature.

AI Coding Assistant Security GuardrailsFullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 3 · 6 providers
AI-Generated Code Vulnerability DetectionFullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 3 · 4 providers
Automated Remediation Pull RequestsFullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 2 · 12 providers
IDE Security Linting★FullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 1 · 8 providers
Pre-Commit Security Checks★PartialDEVSEC · via a feature · level 1 · 7 providers
Security Code Review AssistanceFullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 2 · 4 providers
Custom Security Rule AuthoringFullSAST · via a feature · level 3 · 8 providers
Finding Triage & False-Positive SuppressionFullSAST · via a feature · level 3 · 7 providers
Incremental Diff ScanningFullSAST · level 2 · 8 providers
Static Application Security TestingFullSAST · level 2 · 21 providers
Taint & Data-Flow AnalysisFullSAST · level 3 · 10 providers

What it proves37 controls across 15 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

SSDF 1.18 / 42PS.1.1 PW.5.1 PW.7.1 PW.7.2 RV.1.2 RV.2.1 RV.2.2 RV.3.3
DSOMM4 / 19IM-Application-Hardening IM-Development-and-Source-Control TV-Consolidation TV-Static-Depth-Applications
SAMM 2.04 / 90I-SB-1-A V-ST-1-A V-ST-2-A V-ST-3-A
ASVS 5.03 / 17V1 V15 V5
Agentic Top 103 / 10ASI02 ASI03 ASI05
LLM Top 103 / 10LLM05:2025 LLM06:2025 LLM09:2025
CRA2 / 41Annex I Part II (2) Annex I Part II (3)
CSF 2.02 / 106ID.RA-01 PR.PS-06
OWASP Top 102 / 10A01:2025 A05:2025
AICM1 / 18AIS
CIS Controls1 / 18CIS 16
CNAS Top 101 / 10CNAS-2
S2C2F1 / 25UPD-2
SP 800-204D1 / 11204D-CI-COMMIT
Scorecard1 / 20SAST

What it stops8 techniques · 2 risks

8 techniques countered, 4 of them common

Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationT1190Very Common
Injection ExploitationVery Common
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In FilesT1552.001Very Common
SSRF to Cloud Metadata Credential TheftCommon
AI Agent Privilege AbuseEmerging
AI Agent Tool InvocationAML.T0053Emerging
Publish Hallucinated EntitiesAML.T0060Emerging
Slopsquatting (Hallucinated Package Squatting)Emerging

2 risks reduced

Developer workstation or AI assistant introduces compromiseHigh
Exploitable flaw in first-party application codeHigh

Where it runs3 phases · 5 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Code11
Build2
Monitor1

How it is delivered

CI/CD integrationCLI toolIDE pluginSaaSSource control app

What it unlocks8 activities · reaches level 5

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 5. Supporting an activity is not completing it.

Level 1

Run SAST on critical repositoriesLow effort

Level 2

Scan every pull request and block new high-confidence issuesLow effort
Security feedback in the IDE and pre-commitLow effort

Level 3

Govern AI coding assistants and agentsMedium effort
Practice test-driven security with security unit testsMedium effort
Tune rules and automate triageMedium effort

Level 4

Custom rules from incidents and pentestsMedium effort

Level 5

Eliminate vulnerability classesHigh effort

How it holds up11 criteria scored · 6 strengths · 7 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime3.7
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.3
Context-driven prioritization4.2
CI/CD and developer workflow integration4.6
APIs and extensibility4.3
Actionable remediation guidance4.4
Accuracy and noise4.1
Governance and compliance reporting3.3
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage4.5
Total cost and licensing fit4.4
Operational effort and skills required4.6

Strengths

Licensing unit does not scale with headcount so cost per developer falls as the team grows
Rules are portable Opengrep YAML rather than a proprietary query language
Triage layer is built to suppress rather than to report so a small team is not buried
Free tier includes the same scanners not a crippled subset
Widest nominal language list of the mainstream SAST tools
Scans AI-generated code at the moment it is written through an MCP server

Limitations

No binary or bytecode analysis so third-party and vendor-delivered artifacts cannot be scanned
Cross-file taint tracking is documented for nine languages while the underlying open-source engine still lists interfile taint as unshipped so confirm depth on your own code during a trial
Governance is integration with a GRC platform rather than a native policy engine and there is no attestation comparable to Veracode Verified
Not FedRAMP authorized despite marketing adjacent to it
Published noise reduction figures are self-reported and inconsistent on Aikido's own pages ranging from 85 to 95 percent
The SAST module cannot be bought on its own so the comparison is really against the whole platform
List pricing above the published user brackets is a quote and third-party trackers disagree on the tier figures

Best for

Engineering organizations that have to run application security without an application security team
Teams growing headcount faster than their security budget
Shops that want to keep their detection rules if they leave the vendor

Differentiators

Flat platform fee instead of a per-developer or per-application unit
Built on an engine Aikido initiated and the customer can run themselves
AutoTriage tuned to suppress with a rationale rather than to report

How the analysis works

Pattern and taint analysis on the Opengrep engine, which Aikido initiated as an LGPL fork of Semgrep in January 2025 and still maintains in the open. Rules are Opengrep YAML, so they are portable and testable outside the product. A post-scan AutoTriage layer and a separate multi-agent AI SAST pass sit on top of the deterministic engine.

Organization size it suits

Startups through mid-market, and larger engineering organizations with no AppSec department to staff a triage queue

What it costs5 tiers · Open core or freemium · free tier

LicensingOpen core or freemium

Priced perfree tier plus paid tiers

BillingSubscription

Scales withFeature tier, users or usage beyond the free tier

DeveloperFreemonth · MonthlyRescans every 3 days rather than on every push · 10 AI AutoFixes per month · No pull request security review
EnterpriseContact salesAnnual
Planning estimateestimate$150contributing developer/year · Annual
Basic$300month · Monthly
Pro$600month · Monthly

Licensing in practice

Free forever tier with the full scanner set, then flat monthly platform fees by user bracket with repository and image limits that are the real constraint; several hundred developers means an enterprise quote.

Total cost

Start free; enterprise needs such as SSO, audit logs and policy often require the paid tier.

What it takes to run0.8 FTE at peak · 1–2 weeks to stand up · 2 roles

Peak staffing0.75 FTE

Typical team0.25-0.5 AppSec FTE per 250 developers

Time to stand up1–2 weeks

APIAvailable

Roles it needs

Application Security Engineer0.25–0.5 FTE
DevSecOps Engineer0.1–0.25 FTE

Attestations held

ISO 27001SOC 2 Type II

Automation

REST APICLIPull request checksIDE extensionsMCP serverSIEM export

Compliance reporting

OWASP Top 10CWE mappingsApproval inbox for ignored and snoozed findingsGRC platform integrations

Deployment

Connect the source control app and the first scan runs in minutes; add IDE extensions and a pipeline step as adoption spreads. Local scanning that keeps source off Aikido's servers starts at the Pro tier, and custom rules have to be switched on by Aikido rather than self-served.

What it works with12 languages · 1 standard · 7 features

Named features

AI SAST (Code Security Audit)AIAI SAST (Code Security Audit) in Aikido SAST.
Aikido AutoFixAIAikido AutoFix in Aikido SAST.
Aikido CLI local scanningAikido CLI local scanning in Aikido SAST.
Aikido IDE extensionsAikido IDE extensions in Aikido SAST.
Aikido MCP pluginAIAikido MCP plugin in Aikido SAST.
AutoTriageAIAutoTriage in Aikido SAST.
Custom Opengrep rulesCustom Opengrep rules in Aikido SAST.

Languages

C and C++C# and .NETGoJavaJavaScript and TypeScriptKotlinPHPPythonRubyRustScalaSwift

Standards and formats

Common Weakness Enumeration

Integrates with

Bitbucket CloudGitHub Enterprise CloudGitLab Ultimate

AI features

AI SAST (Code Security Audit)Aikido AutoFixAikido MCP pluginAutoTriage

What else to look at5 competing · 5 comparable head to head · 1 sibling

Comparable head to head

Competes with

Checkmarx One SASTCommercial · 3.88
GitHub Code SecurityFreemium · 4.05
Semgrep CodeFreemium · 3.95
Snyk CodeFreemium · 4.07
Veracode Static AnalysisCommercial · 3.90

Same family

Aikido SecurityFreemium

What backs this up3 measurements

Measured, with how much to trust it

False Positive Rate15%Planning assumption for a pattern-based engine with the triage layer on and no custom rule tuningRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01
Pull Request Finding Fix Rate50%Share of pull request findings fixed before merge; triage removes much of the volume first, so the remainder is more actionable, but autofix covers fewer languages than it scansRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01
Security Build Time Overhead2 minTypical pull request scan on a mid-size service; the engine is deterministic so the figure does not drift between runsRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13