Static Code Analysis

Now pick what to compare Snyk Code against.

Snyk Code 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
selected
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
Compare →

In Static Code Analysis

Snyk Code

Snyk · Static Code Analysis

Close ×

FreemiumCompany4.07 / 5

Snyk Code analyzes source semantically in seconds in IDEs, pull requests and CI, prioritizes issues and proposes AI fixes that are checked before being suggested.

Website ↗

What it does11 capabilities · 7 at full coverage

7 of 11 at full coverage, 6 through a named feature.

AI-Generated Code Vulnerability DetectionFullDEVSEC · 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 · level 1 · 7 providers
Secure Coding Training★PartialDEVSEC · via a feature · level 1 · 5 providers
Security Code Review AssistanceFullDEVSEC · via a feature · level 2 · 4 providers
Custom Security Rule AuthoringPartialSAST · via a feature · level 3 · 8 providers
Finding Triage & False-Positive SuppressionPartialSAST · level 3 · 7 providers
Incremental Diff ScanningFullSAST · via a feature · level 2 · 8 providers
Static Application Security TestingFullSAST · level 2 · 21 providers
Taint & Data-Flow AnalysisFullSAST · level 3 · 10 providers

What it proves41 controls across 14 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

SSDF 1.19 / 42PO.2.2 PS.1.1 PW.5.1 PW.7.1 PW.7.2 RV.1.2 RV.2.1 RV.2.2 RV.3.3
SAMM 2.07 / 90G-EG-1-A G-EG-2-A G-EG-3-A I-SB-1-A V-ST-1-A V-ST-2-A V-ST-3-A
DSOMM5 / 19CO-Education-and-Guidance IM-Application-Hardening IM-Development-and-Source-Control TV-Consolidation TV-Static-Depth-Applications
CSF 2.04 / 106ID.RA-01 PR.AT-01 PR.AT-02 PR.PS-06
ASVS 5.03 / 17V1 V15 V5
CIS Controls2 / 18CIS 14 CIS 16
CRA2 / 41Annex I Part II (2) Annex I Part II (3)
LLM Top 102 / 10LLM05:2025 LLM09:2025
OWASP Top 102 / 10A01:2025 A05:2025
AICM1 / 18HRS
CNAS Top 101 / 10CNAS-2
S2C2F1 / 25UPD-2
SP 800-204D1 / 11204D-CI-COMMIT
Scorecard1 / 20SAST

What it stops6 techniques · 2 risks

6 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
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 runs4 phases · 5 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Plan1
Code11
Build2
Monitor1

How it is delivered

CI/CD integrationCLI toolIDE pluginSaaSSource control app

What it unlocks10 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
Train developers in secure codingLow 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
Findings-driven learning loopMedium effort

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

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime3.6
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.0
Context-driven prioritization3.8
CI/CD and developer workflow integration4.7
APIs and extensibility4.2
Actionable remediation guidance4.5
Accuracy and noise4.1
Governance and compliance reporting3.4
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage4.4
Total cost and licensing fit3.6
Operational effort and skills required4.5

Strengths

Fast scans and a strong IDE experience
AI autofix with verified suggestions
Simple per-developer pricing with a free tier
Shares one platform with Snyk Open Source and Container

Limitations

Custom rules are less flexible than query-language engines and need the Enterprise tier
Per-developer cost grows with headcount
No binary analysis of third-party artifacts
Governance and policy reporting thinner than Veracode or Checkmarx

Best for

Developer-led teams that want findings fixed in the IDE and the pull request
Organizations already using other Snyk products
Fast-moving product companies

Differentiators

Seconds-fast semantic scans in the IDE and PR
DeepCode AI Fix
One platform across code open source containers and IaC

How the analysis works

Source-level semantic analysis with a machine-learning-trained rule engine (DeepCode); no build required, results in the IDE and on pull requests in seconds

Organization size it suits

Startups to enterprises that run developer-led application security

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
FreeFreecontributing developer/month · MonthlyLimited tests per month
Team$25contributing developer/month · Monthly
Planning estimateestimate$500contributing developer/year · Annual

Licensing in practice

Free tier for small teams, Team at list price per contributing developer, Enterprise on a negotiated platform agreement.

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 run1.7 FTE at peak · 1–4 weeks to stand up · 3 roles

Peak staffing1.7 FTE

Typical team0.5-1 AppSec FTE per 250 developers

Time to stand up1–4 weeks

APIAvailable

Roles it needs

Application Security Engineer0.5–1 FTE
DevSecOps Engineer0.25–0.5 FTE
Security Champion0.1–0.2 FTE

Attestations held

SOC 2 Type II

Automation

REST APICLIPull request checksWebhooksIDE fixes

Compliance reporting

OWASP Top 10CWE Top 25PCI DSS report viewsSARIF export

Deployment

SaaS only; connect the SCM app, install IDE plugins and add the CLI or GitHub Action to pipelines.

What it works with11 languages · 2 standards · 5 features

Named features

DeepCode AI FixAIDeepCode AI Fix in Snyk Code.
Enterprise custom rulesEnterprise custom rules in Snyk Code.Needs Enterprise
Snyk IDE extensionsSnyk IDE extensions in Snyk Code.
Snyk LearnSnyk Learn in Snyk Code.
Snyk pull request checksSnyk pull request checks in Snyk Code.

Languages

C and C++C# and .NETGoJavaJavaScript and TypeScriptKotlinPHPPythonRubyScalaSwift

Standards and formats

Common Weakness EnumerationStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format

Integrates with

Bitbucket CloudGitHub Enterprise CloudGitLab UltimateStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format

AI features

DeepCode AI Fix

What else to look at6 competing · 6 comparable head to head · 4 siblings

Comparable head to head

Competes with

Aikido SASTFreemium · 4.22
Checkmarx One SASTCommercial · 3.88
GitHub Code SecurityFreemium · 4.05
Semgrep CodeFreemium · 3.95
SonarQubeFreemium · 3.89
Veracode Static AnalysisCommercial · 3.90

Same family

Snyk AppRiskCommercial
Snyk ContainerFreemium
Snyk IaCFreemium
Snyk Open SourceFreemium · 3.99

What backs this up3 measurements

Measured, with how much to trust it

False Positive Rate12%Planning assumption for untuned semantic SAST on mainstream languagesRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01
Pull Request Finding Fix Rate55%Share of pull request findings fixed before merge in developer-led programsRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01
Security Build Time Overhead2 minTypical pull request scan on a mid-size serviceRockPoint Cyber Estimate · 2026-01-01

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13