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

TC
Forensic Lead, Global Security Fusion Center at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Very good malware and goodware repository and enables us to look more deeply at indicators of compromise
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. Also, the solution’s object and file analysis provide us with actionable insights. Its malware and goodware repository is very good. It's very robust. It gets all of the different repositories that are out there that do analysis and brings them under one roof where we can statically analyze for those indicators of compromise and look at them more deeply. If we need to go deeper into things, we can do that.
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 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."
"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."
"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."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
"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."
"For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE."
"It allows us to prove our security levels to vendors, and additionally helps us with our HIPAA security policies."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its extensive reporting capabilities and user-friendly interface."
"The coverage of the last vulnerabilities reported."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"The most valuable features include the total developer experience, along with regulator exposure and DevOps pipeline. It encompasses everything as an enterprise solution."
"It's hard to say that any single feature is the most essential. There are many errors and vulnerabilities in software today in the standard libraries for different vendors because. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time because we're using standard libraries, and it's important to know that your security isn't compromised because you are using libraries with vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"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."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"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. Right now, I can only do them individually."
"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."
"One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive."
"The user interface can sometimes be a little challenging to work with, and they seem to be changing their algorithm on what is an issue. I understand why they do it, but it sometimes causes more work on our end."
"Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement. They do not have the most robust access to data. That would be a bit more beneficial to a lot of our clients as well as our actual in-house staff. I've been talking to our program management at Veracode about that, and that is actually on their radar to have that improved, I think actually this year."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"In my opinion, Veracode lacks significantly in most parts, including its UI, its reporting, ease of use, and the features that it provides."
"The interface is one thing I find a little challenging. Veracode's interface feels a little outdated compared to other solutions, and it could be modernized. I'm mostly happy with the features, but Vercaode could add Docker image scanning."
"Raw file scans and dynamic scans would be an improvement, instead of dealing with code binaries."
"Mitigation review isn't always super easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We have a yearly contract based on the number of queries and malicious programs which can be processed."
"I don't have firsthand knowledge of Veracode pricing, but based on client feedback, it seems to be expensive with additional fees for certain features."
"No issues, the pricing seems reasonable."
"The solution is expensive."
"I found Veracode very expensive, though I'm not the person paying for it. I was surprised to find out how much the subscription costs and that the executive board approved it, but it was a no-brainer because now my company has better security scans."
"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."
"For our company, the price is reasonable for the benefits that we get."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"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.
884,076 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
10%
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.
884,076 professionals have used our research since 2012.