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

"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."
"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."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
"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."
"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."
"Veracode impacts the overall security posture by maintaining data integrity, ensuring we are not exposed to threats from third-party libraries with known vulnerabilities."
"Informs me of code security vulnerabilities. Bamboo build automation with Veracode API calls are used.​"
"The product provides guidance to develop secure software."
"Veracode has impacted our overall security posture because we are from a security background."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"Vulnerability Management and mitigation recommendations help with resolution of issues found, prior to deployment to production."
"Static scanning and software composition analysis are very helpful. I and my colleagues don't need to be an expert on all of those ancillary things, so we can focus more on the business deliverables."
 

Cons

"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 product support could be better at times. Sometimes, the resources that they provide could be of higher 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."
"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."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"We have approximately 900 people using the solution. The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it."
"Raw file scans and dynamic scans would be an improvement, instead of dealing with code binaries."
"It does nearly everything, but penetration testing."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow... Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"Veracode Static Analysis lacks penetration testing, so that's a concern. The tool is also unable to scan when it's a C or C++ model, so that's another area for improvement."
"It can be a bit complex because it takes a lot of time to have it complete the task."
"Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided."
 

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."
"Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier."
"Pricing/licensing is complicated."
"As compared to others, it is a costly solution. It is overpriced, and many organizations with a limited budget cannot afford it. That is why they are going for other tools, but those tools are not that effective. Veracode is better in terms of quality. If you want good service, you have to pay for it."
"It is an expensive solution, but it's the best solution available on the market. If you want something at the top, you have to pay a bit more than the average."
"Regarding licensing, pay very close attention to what applications you're going to need to do dynamic scanning for, versus static. Right now, the way the licensing is set up, if you don't have any static elements for a website, you can certainly avoid some costs by doing more dynamic licenses. You need to pay very close attention to that, because if you find out later that you have static code elements - like Java scripts, etc. - that you want to have scanned statically, having the two licenses bundled together will actually save you money."
"The pricing of the product depends upon the number of codes or the number of applications."
"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."
"I think licensing needs to be changed or updated so that it works with adjustments. Pricing is expensive compared to the amount of scanning we perform."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
883,546 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
13%
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 Enterprise44
Large Enterprise115
 

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.
883,546 professionals have used our research since 2012.