Static Code Analysis

Now pick what to compare Brakeman against.

Brakeman 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
selected
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
Compare →
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

Coverity

Black Duck Software · Static Code Analysis

Close ×

CommercialCompany3.56 / 5

Coverity performs deep path-sensitive analysis and supports coding standards such as MISRA and CWE compliance reporting; free for open-source projects via Coverity Scan.

What it does2 capabilities · 2 at full coverage

2 of 2 at full coverage.

Static Application Security TestingFullSAST · level 2 · 21 providers
Taint & Data-Flow AnalysisFullSAST · level 3 · 10 providers

What it proves17 controls across 11 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

SSDF 1.13 / 42PW.7.1 PW.7.2 RV.1.2
ASVS 5.02 / 17V1 V5
CSF 2.02 / 106ID.RA-01 PR.PS-06
OWASP Top 102 / 10A01:2025 A05:2025
SAMM 2.02 / 90V-ST-1-A V-ST-2-A
CIS Controls1 / 18CIS 16
CNAS Top 101 / 10CNAS-2
CRA1 / 41Annex I Part II (3)
DSOMM1 / 19TV-Static-Depth-Applications
SP 800-204D1 / 11204D-CI-COMMIT
Scorecard1 / 20SAST

What it stops3 techniques · 1 risk

3 techniques countered, 3 of them common

Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationT1190Very Common
Injection ExploitationVery Common
SSRF to Cloud Metadata Credential TheftCommon

1 risks reduced

Exploitable flaw in first-party application codeHigh

Where it runs2 phases · 2 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Code2
Build2

How it is delivered

SaaSSelf-hosted

What it unlocks3 activities · reaches level 3

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 3. 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

Level 3

Tune rules and automate triageMedium effort

How it holds up11 criteria scored · 4 strengths · 5 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime3.4
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.0
Context-driven prioritization3.3
CI/CD and developer workflow integration3.3
APIs and extensibility4.0
Actionable remediation guidance3.6
Accuracy and noise4.5
Governance and compliance reporting4.1
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage3.0
Total cost and licensing fit2.9
Operational effort and skills required3.0

Strengths

Path-sensitive interprocedural analysis with the lowest false positive reputation in deep C and C++ work
The defect event trace explains why a finding is real better than any other tool here
Compliance reporting for MISRA AUTOSAR and ISO 26262 that functional safety certification actually requires
Free Coverity Scan for open-source projects

Limitations

Build capture is required so the analysis is tied to a working build
Narrower language list than Fortify and far narrower than SonarQube
Least AI-forward of the commercial engines
Quote-only pricing with no published figure
Developer experience is heavy next to anything built after it

Best for

Embedded automotive medical and industrial code with a certification requirement
Large C and C++ codebases where false positives have already destroyed trust in a cheaper tool

Differentiators

Depth on systems code
Safety-standard compliance reporting
Defect traces that convince a sceptic

Organization size it suits

Organizations shipping C or C++ where a defect is a safety or recall problem rather than a ticket

What it costs3 tiers · Platform enterprise agreement

LicensingPlatform enterprise agreement

Priced perannual contract

BillingSubscription

Scales withNegotiated scope (developers, assets, modules)

Coverity ScanFreeproject · Annual
EnterpriseContact salesAnnual
Planning estimateestimate$900contributing developer/year · Annual

Total cost

Opaque list pricing; benchmark with peers and require clear overage terms.

What it takes to runStaffing, standing it up, and what it promises

Compliance reporting

MISRAAUTOSARISO 26262ISO/IEC TS 17961CERTCWE

What it works with8 languages

Languages

C and C++C# and .NETGoJavaJavaScript and TypeScriptKotlinPythonSwift

What else to look at1 competing · 1 comparable head to head

Comparable head to head

Veracode Static Analysisweighted →

Competes with

Veracode Static AnalysisCommercial · 3.90

What backs this up

No measurement, incident or pipeline using it.

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13