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

"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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."
"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."
"Provides the capability to track remediation and the handling of identified vulnerabilities."
"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."
"Using an automated tool brings cost reduction and more security."
"The integration capabilities with our existing development tools are very good."
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"Veracode impacts the overall security posture by maintaining data integrity, ensuring we are not exposed to threats from third-party libraries with known vulnerabilities."
"Veracode has a nice API that they provide to allow for custom things to be built, or automation. We actually have integrated Veracode into our software development cycle using their API. We actually are able to automatically, every time a new build of a software is completed, submit that application, kick off a scan, and we get results in a much more automated fashion."
"For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE."
 

Cons

"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"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."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I noticed there is no integration with Bamboo."
"The support team could be more responsive, and the dependency of users on the support team is too high and should be reduced."
"Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis."
"The solution should include monthly guidelines, a calendar, or a newsletter highlighting the top vulnerabilities and how to resolve them using Veracode. Its policies should be up-to-date with NIST standards and OWASP policies."
"I think if they could improve the operations around accepted vulnerabilities, we would see improvements in our productivity."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"Veracode isn't important to the organization's shift-left security strategy itself. It's a tool."
"It's very expensive for a small organization."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."
"Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
"Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license."
"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."
"The cost of scanning code is cheaper. It's typically $0.50 per line of code. However, it's expensive to run a high-level process that would normally require a human security expert. For example, penetration testing costs about $1,000 per application for penetration testing. The cost of these features may be too high for smaller organizations. On the other hand, Veracode's interactive application security testing is fast and cheaper compared to other software."
"The pricing for Veracode is high, making it difficult for beginners to afford."
"The pricing is a little on the high side but since we combine our product into one suite, it is easy to do and works well for us."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,122 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
37%
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.
884,122 professionals have used our research since 2012.