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

ReversingLabs vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 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

ReversingLabs
Ranking in Application Security Tools
44th
Ranking in Container Security
48th
Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
26th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (44th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (30th), Software Supply Chain Security (19th)
Veracode
Ranking in Application Security Tools
3rd
Ranking in Container Security
8th
Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), 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 ReversingLabs is 0.6%, up from 0.2% 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%
ReversingLabs0.6%
Other94.8%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CSOInfor4e0d - PeerSpot reviewer
CSO - Information Security at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We use the product for data enrichment or downloading malicious programs that we are otherwise unable to find
It's integrated in our product. We leverage the API, but it doesn't contribute to increasing the release time of the product itself. While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality. This could be an area where the company can generally improve. It is not a big issue for us, since we have our own development team, but it could be an issue for other companies who are less mature.
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

"As far as the malware repository is concerned, it's extensive. It's a good source for finding samples, where we are unable to find them on other channels or by leveraging other sources."
"It offers reports on a great many more file types than the other analysis solutions we have. It can give us a more in-depth analysis and better reporting on a larger number of file types. It also gives us a more comprehensive score on a number of things as well, and that's why we're using it as a front-end filter. It gives us more information... It's valuable because of its depth of information, as well as the breadth it gives us. There aren't a lot of tools that cover all of the different file types."
"As far as static analysis information is concerned, we use most of the information that is available in order to determine whether or not we might be dealing with a malware variant. This includes information that is related to Java rules. This is also related to malware families indicated or specific malicious software variants that are labeled by name."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
"As far as the availability of the content is generally concerned and the number of malicious programs that can be looked up in the repository, these are very extensive."
"The automated static analysis of malware is the most valuable feature. Its detection abilities are very good. It hits all of the different platforms out there, platforms that see the items in the wild."
"We have complete faith that it can do that for us, and can do it at scale."
"We had nothing in the environment to do such analysis, so it's been a savior in many ways."
"I like the sandbox, the ability to upload compiled code, and how easy it is."
"The product provides guidance to develop secure software."
"The coverage of the last vulnerabilities reported."
"The time savings has been tremendous."
"The integration of static testing with our Azure DevOps CI pipeline was easy."
"Provides the capability to track remediation and the handling of identified vulnerabilities."
"In three years, we have not had any breaches or seen any reduction in Shadow IT."
"In terms of application security best practices and guidance to our teams, their engineering staff is really excellent. They provide our developers with suggestions and they take those to heart. They've learned from the recommended remediation strategies provided by the Veracode security engineers. That makes all of their future code better."
 

Cons

"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium."
"The product support could be better at times. Sometimes, the resources that they provide could be of higher quality."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets."
"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium. The reason I mentioned both of these is that ReversingLabs claims to have extensive integrations with both of them, but they did not work for us."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets. Right now, I can only do them individually."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk"
"They cover a lot of languages already and it doesn't make sense for them to cover legacy languages but I know there is a need for covering legacy languages."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it.""
"The Web portal, at times, is not necessarily intuitive."
"The runtime code analysis could be improved so that we can see every element in one place."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have a yearly contract based on the number of queries and malicious programs which can be processed."
"Currently, the license number of lookups that we purchased has not been reached yet, because the integration has only recently been completed. However, our usage is expected and planned to increase over the next couple of months."
"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."
"From a cost perspective, it seems okay, although we will probably evaluate alternatives next time it's up for renewal because for us, it's a relatively high cost, and we want to make sure that we are using our resources most appropriately."
"It's worth the value"
"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."
"Its complexity makes it quite expensive, but it’s all worth it, with all the engineering in the background."
"I believe the price is fair according to market standards."
"Its pricing is fair."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

ReversingLabs Titanium, ReversingLabs secure.software
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial services, healthcare, government, manufacturing, oil & gas, telecommunications, information technology
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 ReversingLabs vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.