No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Polyspace Code Prover vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

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

Polyspace Code Prover
Ranking in Application Security Tools
28th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Application Security Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Container Security (10th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.4%, down from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.4%
Polyspace Code Prover1.3%
Other94.3%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2760282 - PeerSpot reviewer
General Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Has struggled with performance and integration but supports critical safety verification
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two main driving factors. The CI environments that we use employ up to around 40,000 virtual CPUs per day in peak, running at the same time. We always have problems distributing licenses accordingly with other products. I can talk to the experts doing the integration, but as far as I know, I was involved with Polyspace Code Prover and we had a lot of difficulties integrating it into our Bazel-driven CI toolchain, plus integrating it on the AWS environments in Linux that we use. It was much more straightforward using Code Sonar there. The reason is the execution speed, integration with Azure and stuff, and pricing. The CI integration and maybe a better-suited license model for CI-driven execution are other areas I recommend improving. That's something we discussed with all of the software companies whose products we use, such as compilers. We have a lot of parallel builds, and each call to a license server is actually problematic in the long run.
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product detects memory corruptions."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"I like Veracode's ease of integration with various cloud platforms and tools."
"We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes."
"The most valuable feature is the remediation consulting that they give. I feel like any vendor can identify the flaws but fixing the flaws is what is most important. Being able to have those consultation calls, schedule them in the platform, and have that discussion with an applications expert, that process scales well and that is what has allowed a lot more reduction of risk to happen."
"The article scanning is excellent, the composition analysis and common CBEs attached to it are quite good, and the solution offers a lot of really great analysis with lots of good data support."
"Using an automated tool brings cost reduction and more security."
"Veracode has improved my organization's ability to fix flaws because before Veracode, we did not even know about issues from the security side."
"There are quite a few features that are very reliable, like the newly launched Veracode Pipelines Scan, which is pretty awesome. It supports the synchronous pipeline pretty well. We been using it out of the Jira plugin, and that is fantastic."
 

Cons

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I think if they could improve the operations around accepted vulnerabilities, we would see improvements in our productivity."
"There are many times when their product goes to check my code and it dies, and I don't know why. I've contacted support and they're not really helpful with this particular problem. I go to the logs and I look at what I can but I can't tell why the check process has essentially just died in the middle of checking."
"The runtime code analysis could be improved so that we can see every element in one place."
"When we engaged Veracode to conduct the manual penetration testing, they were extremely slow in completing the task and delivering the report, causing a delay of two to three weeks for us."
"I would like Veracode to also have the ability to fix these flaws in a future release."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk. Right now I have to jailbreak an iPhone and root an Android to intercept and fuzz requests with a Burp Suite Proxy."
"While Veracode is way ahead of its competitors on Gartner Magic Quadrant, it's a bit more expensive than Fortify."
"Maybe the boards could be made easier to understand or easier to customize."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."
"Without getting too specific, I'd say the average yearly cost is around $50,000. The costs include licensing and maintenance support."
"Veracode is affordable for large organizations, but its pricing may be out of reach for small and medium companies."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"It can be expensive to do this, so I would just make sure that you're getting the proper number of licenses. Do your analysis. Make sure you know exactly what it is you need, going in."
"I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms."
"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis could improve."
"It is expensive. It depends on the use case, but it is very hard to find a pricing page on their website. Instead, they need to analyze your use case, but without knowing the entire project and how you're going to be using Veracode, how many scans you're going to do, if yours is a small business, it is very expensive and it affects ROI."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
37%
Computer Software Company
7%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Construction Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?
Execution speed of the tests and generally the integration into AWS-driven CI work chains or workflows represent how it can be improved in my opinion. Performance issues plus license costs are two ...
What is your primary use case for Polyspace Code Prover?
It is validation for Functional Safety applications in automotive.
What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?
We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to fi...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alenia Aermacchi, CSEE Transport, Delphi Diesel Systems, EADS, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Korean Air, KOSTAL, Miracor, NASA Ames Research Center
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Polyspace Code Prover vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.