GitHub Code Scanning vs Q-mast comparison

GitHub and Quokka are both solutions in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category. GitHub is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.6, while Quokka is ranked #60. GitHub holds a 1.2% mindshare in SAST, compared to Quokka’s 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of GitHub users are willing to recommend the solution.

GitHub Code Scanning

Read 6 GitHub Code Scanning reviews

941 Views
885 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Q-mast

88 Views
88 Comparison Views

GitHub Code Scanning

Q-mast

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 4, 2025

GitHub Code Scanning and Q-mast are competing products in code quality and security. GitHub Code Scanning holds the upper hand due to its better integration and pricing, but Q-mast's advanced features make it a viable choice for in-depth analysis.

Features: GitHub Code Scanning stands out with its seamless integration into the GitHub platform, real-time feedback, and support for many programming languages. Q-mast is notable for its advanced analytical capabilities, comprehensive reporting options, and deep insights into code vulnerabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GitHub Code Scanning offers easy deployment through its native GitHub integration and efficient customer support utilizing GitHub's existing network. Q-mast entails a more complex deployment process due to its standalone nature, but it compensates with detailed and personalized customer service.

Pricing and ROI: GitHub Code Scanning provides competitive pricing through inclusion in GitHub's existing tiers, leading to high ROI for GitHub users at minimal extra expense. Q-mast has a higher setup cost but delivers significant ROI for companies needing detailed code analysis through its specialized capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 862,289 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

GitHub Code Scanning

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

17th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Q-mast

Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

60th

Average Rating

0.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of GitHub Code Scanning is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Q-mast is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Featured Reviews

VishalSingh

Consulting & Solutions, BA/BD in Enterprise IT on Open Source, Red Hat & EDB at KEEN AND ABLE COMPUTERS PVT LTD

Traverses the entire network, scanning every system to determine which ports are open

You can use the tool locally on your system or in the cloud. I rate it a nine out of ten. It's a very good tool for people who want to start using GitHubCode Scanning, especially for software development or team collaboration. GitHubCode Scanning allows teams to collaborate by uploading files to repositories. For example, if someone is developing an application, they can host the code on GitHub Code Scanning. Other developers can then download the code for testing purposes. If bugs are found, fixes can be applied using the GitHub Code Scanningrepository, and everyone on the team can see the changes. Software developers often use GitHub Code Scanning for version control, and it's essential for CI/CD pipelines to work.

Read full review

Use Q-mast?

Share your opinion

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

862,289 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitHub Code Scanning?

We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Code Scanning?

The organization pays for the license of GitHub Code Scanning, but specific price details are unknown.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?

When running code scans, GitHub Code Scanning provides recommendations for probable fixes. However, integrating a feature where developers receive real-time highlights of vulnerabilities when check...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 36% of the time

Coverity vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 27% of the time

SonarQube Cloud (formerly SonarCloud) vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 12% of the time

Aikido Security vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 10% of the time

Polaris Software Integrity Platform vs GitHub Code Scanning

Compared 5% of the time

More GitHub Code Scanning Competitors

Qualys Web Application Scanning vs Q-mast

Compared 100% of the time

More Q-mast Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

GitHub Code Scanning

July 2025

Download GitHub Code Scanning product report

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

July 2025

Download Q-mast product report

Overview

Code scanning is a feature that you use to analyze the code in a GitHub repository to find security vulnerabilities and coding errors. Any problems identified by the analysis are shown in GitHub.

GitHub

Q-mast enhances mobile app security by embedding it into development workflows to detect risks before release. It provides defense-grade app scanning leveraging threat research to identify vulnerabilities and insights.

Designed for mobile developers, Q-mast empowers security and development teams to mitigate issues early, reducing costs and limiting zero-day attack exposure. Its capabilities in scanning and risk identification are backed by extensive threat research, making it a critical tool in app development lifecycles.

What are the key features of Q-mast?

Automated scanning in minutes, no source code required
Analysis of compiled app binary, effective despite obfuscations
Precise SBOM generation and analysis for vulnerability reporting
Comprehensive static, dynamic, interactive, and forced-path analysis
Malicious behavior profiling, including app collusion

What benefits or ROI should be considered?

Enhanced Productivity: Balances app deployment speed with security
Improved Accuracy: Scans entire app binary including third-party libraries
Cost Savings: Identifies security and privacy issues early
Compliance: Adheres to standards from NIAP, NIST, OWASP MASVS, CVEs, SARIF
Scalability: Validates security posture across global environments

Q-mast is widely implemented across industries to prevent data breaches and fraud. It is especially favored in finance and healthcare sectors for compliance support, proving essential in highly-regulated environments.

Quokka

Buyer's Guide

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

July 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

862,289 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.

We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.