Polyspace Code Prover vs Veracode comparison

Read 207 Veracode reviews

23,090 Views
12,930 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Polyspace Code Prover

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Veracode and Polyspace Code Prover compete in code security and analysis. Veracode often has the edge due to its seamless integration and ease of use.

Features: Veracode provides a comprehensive SaaS platform, facilitating seamless integration into CI/CD pipelines. It offers versatile usage across different environments and ensures ease of use. Polyspace Code Prover is equipped with precise formal verification tools, emphasizing detailed formal static analysis. Its capabilities are most beneficial to safety-critical systems where rigorous code verification is necessary.

Room for Improvement: Veracode could improve its in-depth code analysis, expand features for more comprehensive code reviews, and enhance reporting capabilities. Polyspace Code Prover can work on smoother integration with other development tools, simplifying setup processes, and refining user interface for ease of use.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Veracode offers high scores in cloud-based deployment, enabling rapid integration supported by responsive customer service. Polyspace requires more thorough initial configuration and effort in setting up, focused on comprehensive reviews with an emphasis on on-premise installations.

Pricing and ROI: Veracode is considered cost-effective with strong ROI, suitable for fast-paced development environments. It has appealing pricing for teams requiring quick and scalable solutions. Polyspace is more costly, justifying the investment with projects that demand rigorous code verification and where verification precision is paramount.

To learn more, read our detailed Polyspace Code Prover vs. Veracode Report (Updated: April 2026).

Polyspace Code Prover vs. Veracode

Download the complete report

Helped 892,678 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

Polyspace Code Prover

Ranking in Application Security Tools

28th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

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
Product	Mindshare (%)
Veracode	4.4%
Polyspace Code Prover	1.3%
Other	94.3%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer2760282

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.

Read full review

reviewer2703864

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.

Read full review

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."

"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."

"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."

"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."

"It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities."

"The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with."

"We were able to easily integrate static code testing into the SDLC process."

"It is a good product for creating secure software. The static code analysis is pretty good and useful."

"Using Veracode has helped to improve our organization in that we now have discipline in terms of periodically scanning our systems."

"The most valuable feature is the static scan that checks for security issues."

"The main feature, and one of the most important, is the static code analysis. We are able to complete an analysis of the security flaws with this platform. It's very good at helping us find and fix flaws."

"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."

More Veracode pros

Cons

"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."

"Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally."

"The tool has some stability issues."

"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."

"It's problematic if you want to integrate it with your pipelines because the documentation is not so well written and it's full of typos. It is not presented in a structured way. It does not say, "If you want to achieve this particular thing, you have to do steps 1, 2, and 3." Instead, it contains bits of information in different parts, and you have to read everything and then understand the big picture."

"There are few languages that take time for scanning. It covers the majority of languages from C to Scala, but it doesn't support certain languages and the newer versions of certain languages."

"It takes a while to get a response to the software composition analysis. It is within an acceptable range but it could still be improved."

"For one or two particular applications, the dynamic code analysis can take too much time. Sometimes, it takes three days or more."

"The scanning is a little slow, but other than that it's fine."

"When we implement a policy, it can be very difficult to locate."

"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."

"There might be room for improvement in the in-app guidance and the tips and tricks for the developer about how to progress. We would like more insight into the development environment, where they would get guidance on how to avoid flaws."

More Veracode cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We use the paid version."

"Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription."

"It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better."

"I think it's a great value. It's at a price point that a small company like mine can afford to use versus, if it was too exorbitant, I wouldn't be able to use this product. The cost of the license is small in comparison to the value it brings"

"Veracode is costly. They have different license models for different customers. What we had was based on the amount of code that has been analyzed. The license that we had was capped to a certain amount, for example, 5 Gig. There would be an extra charge for anything above 5 Gig."

"I'm unfamiliar with the solution's pricing, but it must be worth the cost from a company perspective, as we have been using it for years and have no plans to move away from it."

"The licensing and prices were upfront and clear. They stand behind everything that is said during the commercial phase and during the onboarding phase. Even the most irrelevant "that can be done" was delivered, no matter how important the request was."

"There is a fee to scale up the solution which I consider expensive."

"Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need."

More Veracode pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

892,678 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

37%

Computer Software Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Construction Company

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	69
Midsize Enterprise	45
Large Enterprise	114

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Polyspace Code Prover?

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.

Coverity Static vs Polyspace Code Prover

Comparisons

Compared 14% of the time

SonarQube vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 13% of the time

Klocwork vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 11% of the time

CodeSonar vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 8% of the time

Mend.io vs Polyspace Code Prover

Compared 4% of the time

More Polyspace Code Prover Competitors

SonarQube vs Veracode

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Veracode

Compared 6% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Veracode

Compared 3% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs Veracode

Compared 3% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Veracode

Compared 3% of the time

More Veracode Competitors

Product Reports

Polyspace Code Prover

Download Polyspace Code Prover product report

Download Veracode product report

Also Known As

No data available

Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect

Overview

Polyspace Code Prover boosts code reliability by identifying critical issues like memory corruption and null pointer dereferences, adhering to ISO 26262 standards.

Polyspace Code Prover offers advanced static code analysis tailored to detect complex runtime issues, making it a substantial asset in safety-critical software development. With features that facilitate easy integration with minimal tool switching, it effectively examines code segment runtimes for potential faults such as memory overflows. Polyspace Code Prover stands out by providing mathematical proofs of correctness, differentiating it from other static tools. However, improvements in processing speed and large-scale application handling remain necessary. While integration challenges exist with CI environments like AWS and Azure, the tool's efficiency is valued in automotive applications for unit-level verification and requirement-based component development, despite some scalability limitations.

What are Polyspace Code Prover's key features?

Division by Zero Checks: Ensures code stability and reliability by identifying risky operations.
Memory Corruption Detection: Safeguards against potential memory leaks and access violations.
ISO 26262 Compliance: Aligns with critical automotive industry standards.
Mathematical Correctness Proof: Provides certainty in logic correctness, unique in static analysis tools.
Minimal Tool Switching: Enhances user efficiency with seamless integration into workflows.

What benefits can be gained from Polyspace Code Prover?

Enhanced Code Reliability: Reduces faults and improves the robustness of developed code.
Increased Efficiency: Fast analysis with minimal tool changes streamlines workflow.
Compliance Assurance: Supports meeting stringent industry standards.
Risk Reduction: Identifies critical issues early, minimizing potential downtime or defects.

In industries such as automotive, Polyspace Code Prover is crucial for Functional Safety validation. It is applied in diverse projects like vertical control systems and cluster infotainment, with a focus on requirement-based component development. Despite challenges in larger applications, it remains a vital tool for analyzing Simulink models and small-scale implementations.

MathWorks

Veracode is a leading provider of application security solutions, offering tools to identify, mitigate, and prevent vulnerabilities across the software development lifecycle. Its cloud-based platform integrates security into DevOps workflows, helping organizations ensure that their code remains secure and compliant with industry standards.

Veracode supports multiple application security testing types, including static analysis (SAST), dynamic analysis (DAST), software composition analysis (SCA), and manual penetration testing. These tools are designed to help developers detect vulnerabilities early in development while maintaining speed in deployment. Veracode also emphasizes scalability, offering features for enterprises that manage a large number of applications across different teams. Its robust reporting and analytics capabilities allow organizations to continuously monitor their security posture and track progress toward remediation.

What are the key features of Veracode?

Static Analysis (SAST) - Scans source code for vulnerabilities before deployment.
Dynamic Analysis (DAST) - Examines applications in a running state to detect flaws in real-time.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) - Identifies risks in open-source libraries and third-party components.
Manual Penetration Testing - Offers expert analysis for more complex vulnerabilities.
Integrations with DevOps tools - Seamlessly integrates with CI/CD pipelines for automated security checks.

What benefits should users consider in Veracode reviews?

Early detection of vulnerabilities - Helps developers fix security issues early in the development process.
Scalability - Supports organizations with large-scale application portfolios.
Compliance support - Ensures applications meet various security standards and regulations.
Developer training - Provides tools for educating developers on secure coding practices.
Comprehensive reporting - Offers detailed reports that track remediation and risk trends.

Veracode is widely adopted in industries like finance, healthcare, and government, where compliance and security are critical. It helps these organizations maintain strict security standards while enabling rapid development through its integration with Agile and DevOps methodologies.

Veracode helps businesses secure their applications efficiently, ensuring they can deliver safe and compliant software at scale.

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.

Polyspace Code Prover vs. Veracode