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
31st
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) (3rd), Container Security (12th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Polyspace Code Prover is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 4.3%, down from 8.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.3%
Polyspace Code Prover1.2%
Other94.5%
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.
reviewer2753535 - PeerSpot reviewer
DevSecOps Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Integrates security into the development process and improves team collaboration
Veracode helps organizations develop software by reducing the risk of security vulnerabilities through developer enablement and applications focused on governance. You can utilize different levels of processes to achieve better performance or a more scalable service. Since I started working with it in 2022, I’ve found it to be cost-effective as well. Overall, Veracode is a user-friendly security tool. It includes features such as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Software Composition Analysis (SCA). During the development phase, we can identify vulnerabilities in the application. This process occurs in the staging environment during development. When we're ready to go to production, we conduct a final check. Essentially, this tool helps identify vulnerabilities during the code development stage, including both high-level vulnerabilities and those related to open-source software composition. We utilize specific methodologies for this purpose. Additionally, it offers a feature that allows us to set up policies based on client requirements. This means we can customize the tool to meet the specific needs of our clients, ensuring that they receive the appropriate level of security in their applications. Veracode is user-friendly as well. Compared to other tools, their scans take 15 minutes or under. If you have a large scale of libraries or data, it might take longer, but based on my personal experience, the scan usually runs within fifteen minutes. For my case study using the Veracode tool, I worked on an internal project following industry standards. We used Veracode to improve our security posture and speed up the time to market by streamlining the development process. This enhanced collaboration between developers, operations, and security teams. The automated scanning process helped identify and fix vulnerabilities earlier in the development process. We maintained compliance with regulatory requirements, avoided fines, and built customer trust by integrating security into the development process. When we conduct this scan, we receive data on a list of vulnerabilities. This information improved our communication and increased transparency, which leads to better reports about the efforts being put in. This results in a more effective and efficient collaboration process, making it user-friendly for all involved. When considering costs, if we resort to manual processes, it can be time-consuming. Therefore, we utilize automated scans to identify and fix security issues. This allows us to address vulnerabilities early in the development process, as we discussed previously. This applies both to our in-house code and third-party libraries, using Software Composition Analysis (SCA) agent-based scans. In the future, we will also implement SCA agent-based scans as a separate feature within Veracode, which can help organizations avoid the expensive and time-consuming consequences of security issues. Furthermore, we have seen an increase in compliance, helping to maintain adherence to regulatory requirements and industry standards, thereby avoiding fines and reputational damage associated with noncompliance. Additionally, by integrating security into the development process, we enhance customer trust in our organization and its products.

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 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 outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Efficiency and speed are the advantages I see in Code Sonar over Polyspace Code Prover."
"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 dependency graph visualization provides the ability to see nested dependencies within libraries for pinpointing vulnerabilities."
"It gives us more confidence in the application security of the products we scan."
"Our development team use this solution for static code analysis and pen testing."
"One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing."
"Veracode supports a broad range of code technologies, and it can analyze large applications. Fortify takes a long time and may not be able to generate the report for larger applications. We don't have these constraints with Veracode."
"The valuable features are the static analysis and the dynamic analysis."
"The most valuable feature is detecting security vulnerabilities in the project."
"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."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"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."
"I'm still trying to use constraints with range propagation, but I can't get it to work properly, and I haven't found any documentation."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"On-premise implementation is not available."
"Those pages need to be redesigned."
"The scanning could be a little faster. The process around three or four minutes, but it would help if it could be further reduced."
"There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed."
"The scanning process could be more streamlined as it has certain limitations when performing manual scans. It has some checks when the content is in ZIP format or other formats, which takes two or three more steps than Fortify does."
"The solution recently doubled in price over the past year, which is why I've decided to move away from it."
"The GUI requires significant simplification, as its current complexity creates a steep learning curve for new users."
"The one thing I'd like to be able to do is schedule dynamic scans. Today we're kicking those off manually, but I believe that it's something have on their roadmap."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."
"The pricing is reasonable compared to other tools."
"We're very comfortable with their model. We think they're a good value. We worked very closely with Veracode on understanding their license model, understanding what comprises the fee and what does not. With their assistance in design, we decomposed our application in a way where we are scanning a very significant amount of code without wasting their capacity and generating redundant reported issues. You scan in profiles, per se. And we work with them, in their offices, to design the most effective approach. So the advice I would have for customers is, you can get up and live fast, but work closely with Veracode to refine the method you use for scanning and the way you compile the applications. There's a concept called entry-point scanning, and that's probably not used well by the rest of their customers. We see our licensing as a good value because we leverage it heavily."
"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."
"Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier."
"The cost has been a barrier to wider use here. I think my team is the only one at the university. Other folks might like to use it, but it's pretty pricey. You could see what else is in the market, but I hear that's the price for most solutions. You might not find a better deal in the market, or it might be an incomplete solution. I mean, for the level of interaction we get with Veracode staff, it's been pretty good."
"Veracode provides value for the cost, with no additional charges apart from the standard licensing fee."
"The pricing of the product depends upon the number of codes or the number of applications."
"Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
35%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Outsourcing Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
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 Enterprise46
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 is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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: August 2026.
909,563 professionals have used our research since 2012.