Static Code Analysis

Now pick what to compare GitHub Code Security against.

GitHub Code Security 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
selected
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
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

gosec

securego · Static Code Analysis

Close ×

Open SourceCommunity2.66 / 5

gosec detects SQL injection, weak crypto, file inclusion and unhandled errors, and outputs SARIF for code scanning.

Repository ↗

What it does1 capability

0 of 1 at full coverage.

Static Application Security TestingPartialSAST · level 2 · 21 providers

What it proves16 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
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
OWASP Top 101 / 10A05:2025
SP 800-204D1 / 11204D-CI-COMMIT
Scorecard1 / 20SAST

What it stops2 techniques · 1 risk

2 techniques countered, 2 of them common

Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationT1190Very Common
Injection ExploitationVery Common

1 risks reduced

Exploitable flaw in first-party application codeHigh

Where it runs2 phases · 1 way to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Code1
Build1

How it is delivered

CLI tool

What it unlocks2 activities · reaches level 2

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 2. 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

How it holds up11 criteria scored · 3 strengths · 4 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime2.5
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth1.2
Context-driven prioritization1.5
CI/CD and developer workflow integration3.3
APIs and extensibility3.4
Actionable remediation guidance2.3
Accuracy and noise3.0
Governance and compliance reporting1.5
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage1.0
Total cost and licensing fit5.0
Operational effort and skills required4.4

Strengths

Uses Go's own syntax tree and single static assignment form so it sees more than plain pattern matching
SARIF output drops straight into code scanning
Standard part of the Go linting toolchain so adoption needs no argument

Limitations

Go only
Rule set is narrower than a commercial engine and grows slowly
No triage prioritization reporting or ownership routing
Unhandled-error checks generate volume that teams usually disable

Best for

Go services and tooling
Pipelines that already run golangci-lint

Differentiators

Free
SSA-based analysis rather than pattern matching alone

What it costs2 tiers · Open source (free) · free tier

LicensingOpen source (free)

Priced pernone

BillingFree

Scales withOperating effort only

Open sourceFreeyear · Annual
Planning estimateestimateFreeyear · Annual

Total cost

No license cost, but self-support, upgrades, scaling and integration effort must be budgeted as personnel cost.

What it takes to run

No staffing, rollout time or operational commitment recorded.

What it works with1 language

Languages

What else to look at

No alternative, competitor or family sibling is modeled for it.

What backs this up

No measurement, incident or pipeline using it.

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13