Static Code Analysis

Now pick what to compare NowSecure Platform against.

NowSecure Platform 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
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
selected

In Static Code Analysis

Semgrep Code

Semgrep · Static Code Analysis

Close ×

FreemiumCompany3.95 / 5

Semgrep Code runs diff-aware scans in seconds, lets teams write rules that look like the code they match, and uses Semgrep Assistant to filter false positives and suggest fixes.

Website ↗

What it does11 capabilities · 8 at full coverage

8 of 11 at full coverage, 9 through a named feature.

AI Coding Assistant Security GuardrailsPartialDEVSEC · via a feature · level 3 · 6 providers
AI-Generated Code Vulnerability DetectionPartialDEVSEC · via a feature · level 3 · 4 providers
Automated Remediation Pull RequestsPartialDEVSEC · via a feature · level 2 · 12 providers
IDE Security Linting★FullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 1 · 8 providers
Pre-Commit Security Checks★FullDEVSEC · 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 · via a feature · 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 · 5 strengths · 7 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime3.5
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.4
Context-driven prioritization3.4
CI/CD and developer workflow integration4.6
APIs and extensibility4.5
Actionable remediation guidance4.2
Accuracy and noise4.3
Governance and compliance reporting2.9
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage4.3
Total cost and licensing fit3.5
Operational effort and skills required3.8

Strengths

Custom rules are readable YAML and the rule registry is public so detection logic is portable
Diff-aware scans return in seconds and block merges by policy mode
Published language support is the widest of any SAST tool modeled here
Assistant triage learns organization-specific context through reusable memories
Vendor publishes its own accuracy methodology and distinguishes confidence from recall

Limitations

No risk prioritization for code findings beyond severity and triage so there is no reachability or exposure ranking of the kind the dependency products have
Governance is enforcement rather than reporting with no compliance report no framework attestation and no documented exception expiry
Language depth is tiered and only eight languages get cross-file taint while twenty of thirty-nine are experimental
Autofix is a public beta and narrower than the generally available fix engines it competes against
Per-contributor pricing scales linearly with headcount and Code and Supply Chain are billed separately
On-premises source control requires the Enterprise tier
The value is in rules somebody has to write so the tool rewards a team that has an application security engineer and underperforms for one that does not

Best for

Teams with an application security engineer who wants to encode their own standards as rules
Organizations that want detection logic they can take with them
Monorepos and fast pipelines where scan time is the binding constraint

Differentiators

Rules that read like the code they match
A public rule registry rather than a proprietary rule set
Candid published accuracy methodology

How the analysis works

Pattern matching and taint analysis on the Semgrep engine, with the commercial Pro tier adding depth the open-source engine does not have. Depth is tiered rather than uniform: cross-file taint reaches eight languages (C#, Go, Java, JavaScript, Kotlin, Python, TypeScript and C/C++), a further seven get cross-function analysis only, and twenty of the thirty-nine documented languages are experimental. Rules are readable YAML that look like the code they match, which is the product's organizing idea.

Organization size it suits

Organizations with an application security engineer who can write rules, from mid-size startups to large enterprises

What it costs4 tiers · Per contributing developer · free tier

LicensingPer contributing developer

Priced percontributing developer per month

BillingSubscription

Scales withDevelopers contributing to monitored projects

EnterpriseContact salesAnnual
FreeFreecontributor/month · MonthlyUp to 10 contributors · Up to 10 repositories · Community support only
Teams$30contributor/month · Monthly500 private repositories · No self-managed or on-premises source control · Supply Chain is a separate 30 per contributer per month
Planning estimateestimate$350contributing developer/year · Annual

Licensing in practice

Free to 10 contributors and 10 repositories, then 30 per contributor per month for Code with Supply Chain priced separately; Enterprise is a negotiated agreement and the only tier that supports on-premises source control.

Total cost

Predictable per head; scanning more projects is free but adding teams is not; shared or service accounts need clarification in contracts.

What it takes to run1.8 FTE at peak · 1–3 weeks to stand up · 2 roles

Peak staffing1.75 FTE

Typical team0.75-1.25 AppSec FTE per 250 developers, weighted toward rule work rather than triage

Time to stand up1–3 weeks

APIAvailable

Roles it needs

Application Security Engineer0.75–1.25 FTE
DevSecOps Engineer0.25–0.5 FTE

Attestations held

SOC 2 Type II

Automation

REST APICLIPull request commentsSARIF exportMCP serverPre-commit hook

Compliance reporting

OWASP ruleset groupingsCWE mappingsSARIF export

Deployment

Connect the source control app, pick a policy and the first diff-aware scan runs in minutes; the work is in rule selection and tuning afterward. Self-managed and on-premises source control needs the Enterprise tier.

What it works with12 languages · 2 standards · 7 features

Named features

Cross-file dataflow analysisCross-file dataflow analysis in Semgrep Code.
MonitorMonitor in Semgrep Code.
Semgrep AssistantAISemgrep Assistant in Semgrep Code.
Semgrep AutofixAISemgrep Autofix in Semgrep Code.
Semgrep GuardianAISemgrep Guardian in Semgrep Code.
Semgrep pre-commit hookSemgrep pre-commit hook in Semgrep Code.
VS Code and IntelliJ extensionsVS Code and IntelliJ extensions in Semgrep Code.

Languages

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

Standards and formats

Common Weakness EnumerationStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format

Integrates with

Bitbucket CloudGitHub Enterprise CloudGitLab UltimateStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format

AI features

Semgrep AssistantSemgrep AutofixSemgrep Guardian

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

Comparable head to head

Competes with

Aikido SASTFreemium · 4.22
Checkmarx One SASTCommercial · 3.88
GitHub Code SecurityFreemium · 4.05
Snyk CodeFreemium · 4.07
Veracode Static AnalysisCommercial · 3.90

Same family

Semgrep Community EditionOpen Source · 2.96

What backs this up

No measurement, incident or pipeline using it.

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13