Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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
26th
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
208
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.6%, down from 10.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.6%
Polyspace Code Prover1.3%
Other94.1%
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

"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."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"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 product detects memory corruptions."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"Veracode has positively impacted our organization by giving us a good chance to focus on development as we don't need to focus as much on compliance-related matters after we have ensured this level of security on the security posture management for our application."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"Also, our customers benefited from the added security assurance of our applications, as they’ve been able to identify OWASP top-10 application vulnerabilities without a manual tester."
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"When we do have errors, Veracode is always available, their consultants, to help us either mitigate the error, or provide technical assistance on pointing exactly where the problem is and how we could probably fix it. I'm always amazed at how knowledgeable they are."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
"Static code scanning is the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"Veracode can improve the price model and how they bill the final offer to customers. It's based on the amount of traffic. For example, you can buy 1 gigabyte distributed across various applications, and each one can consume part of the whole allotment of traffic data."
"I would like to see more technical support for some of the connectors, some more detailed diagrams or run-books on how to install some of stuff; more hand-holding in the sense of understanding our environment."
"I would like to see them provide more content in the developer training section. This field is really changing each day and there are flaws that are detected each day. Some sort of regular updates to the learning would help."
"From the usability perspective, it is not up to date with the latest trends. It looks very old. Tools such as Datadog, New Relic, or infrastructure security tools, such as AWS Cloud, seem very user-friendly. They are completely web-based, and you can navigate through them pretty quickly, whereas Veracode is very rigid. It is like an old-school enterprise application. It does the job, but they need to invest a little more on the usability front."
"All areas of the solution could use some improvement."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"Veracode's ability to fix flaws is less sophisticated than that of its competitors."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable, and relatively straightforward, and different licensing and subscription models are available."
"We are still considering it at the enterprise level. It has a subscription-based model. We find its price a little high based on the features it provides."
"Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need."
"I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others."
"It is an expensive solution, but it's the best solution available on the market. If you want something at the top, you have to pay a bit more than the average."
"I believe the price is fair according to market standards."
"Its complexity makes it quite expensive, but it’s all worth it, with all the engineering in the background."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
36%
Computer Software Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
6%
Healthcare Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
 

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.
 

Comparisons

 

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: March 2026.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.