AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Strong answers separate native engines from orchestrated/imported results, and state whether it is a single analysis engine or an aggregator normalizing other scanners. Probe depth of each native engine.
Sources: blackduck.com · semgrep.dev · ox.security
Look for reachability/exploitability analysis and runtime context with a concrete noise-reduction claim (e.g., how many findings collapse to how many actionable risks), not just CVSS severity.
Sources: endorlabs.com · apiiro.com · ox.security
Evidence-backed answers show IDE/PR/CI integration, AI-suggested fixes, owner mapping, and guardrails that avoid build breakage; ask for adoption/fix-rate data, not just feature lists.
Sources: semgrep.dev · snyk.io
Neutral strengths and gaps for each vendor in this category, drawn from vendors' own public materials — included so the questions above favor no single vendor. Gaps reflect capabilities not emphasized in public materials, not rankings.
| Vendor | Strengths | Gaps / watch-outs |
|---|---|---|
| Aikido Security AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Consolidated, developer-friendly all-in-one (SAST/SCA/secrets/CSPM/DAST) for lean teams, with AI code coverage. | Consolidation trades some depth versus specialist tools, and the enterprise track record is younger. |
| Apiiro AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet. |
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Strong answers describe normalization/deduplication across tools and a traced path from code to runtime/cloud, distinguishing true correlation from a shared dashboard.
Sources: ox.security · legitsecurity.com · apiiro.com
Prefer answers listing concrete supply-chain controls (malware prevention, SBOM formats, pipeline/build integrity, signing) and how they integrate into CI, over generic 'supply chain security' claims.
Sources: cycode.com · endorlabs.com · legitsecurity.com
Look for an explicit language/ecosystem matrix and SCM/CI integration list, plus candid disclosure of weaker or beta coverage.
Sources: snyk.io · semgrep.dev · checkmarx.com
Strong answers describe scanning of AI-generated code, inventory of AI/LLM components (AI-BOM), and guardrails for coding assistants/MCP, with honest limits.
Sources: aikido.dev · checkmarx.com · mend.io
Prefer customer-validated accuracy and performance figures and concrete policy/compliance/governance capabilities over vendor benchmarks. Probe how policy gates behave in CI at scale.
Sources: blackduck.com · veracode.com · sonarsource.com
Strong answers clarify exactly where the ASPM/CNAPP boundary sits for this vendor and whether container findings correlate back to the originating code/commit.
Look for full git-history scanning (a secret committed once and later deleted is often still exposed in history) and real automated rotation, not just a detection alert requiring manual cleanup.
Strong answers name specific export standards (CycloneDX/SPDX for SBOM, VEX for vulnerability status) rather than a proprietary, non-portable report format.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; a vendor unable to project cost at 2x current scale creates real budget risk for a growing engineering org.
Shadow-API discovery is materially stronger than spec-only scanning, since undocumented endpoints are a common real-world breach vector.
Strong answers show in-workflow, contextual training tied to actual findings, which drives better developer behavior change than generic annual training modules.
Strong answers demonstrate real forward-and-backward traceability between runtime findings and source control history, not just a generic 'found in file X' report.
Bidirectional sync and automatic compliance-evidence generation are materially stronger than one-way ticket creation requiring manual reconciliation and separate compliance documentation.
| Deep code-to-runtime risk graph with design/architecture risk analysis and reachability-based prioritization. |
| Emphasizes risk orchestration and graphing; native scanner depth can vary versus dedicated specialists. |
| Black Duck AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Comprehensive enterprise AppSec suite (SCA, Coverity SAST, DAST, IAST, fuzzing, ASPM) with deep compliance. | Breadth and enterprise tooling can mean heavier deployment and higher cost. |
| Checkmarx AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Broad AppSec coverage (SAST, SCA, API, IaC, container, ASPM) built for enterprise scale. | Breadth can add configuration/tuning overhead, and result volume needs strong prioritization. |
| Cycode AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | ASPM plus software supply chain security spanning SAST, SCA, secrets, and CI/CD pipeline protection. | Newer ASPM entrant; individual native scanners may be lighter than specialist point tools. |
| Endor Labs AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Reachability-based SCA that cuts dependency noise, plus AI SAST and supply-chain malware prevention. | Best known for SCA reachability; broader ASPM breadth is still expanding in public materials. |
| Legit Security AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | ASPM and SDLC posture with software supply chain, secrets, and AI-SDLC coverage. | Orchestration-focused; depth of some native scanning depends on integrated tools. |
| Mend AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Strong SCA heritage plus SAST, container, and AI application security. | SCA is the anchor; ASPM orchestration breadth is emphasized less than composition analysis. |
| Ox Security AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | ASPM that prioritizes reachable risks and unifies code-to-cloud and supply chain with secrets and SBOM. | Aggregation/prioritization focus; relies on integrated scanners for some analysis depth. |
| Semgrep AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Fast, customizable rule-based SAST/SCA/secrets with strong developer adoption and an open core. | Rule-based approach can require tuning; DAST and runtime are not the focus. |
| Snyk AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Developer-first SCA, SAST, container, and IaC scanning with strong IDE and pull-request workflow and broad ecosystem coverage. | Public materials emphasize developer breadth; orchestration of third-party scanners into a unified ASPM view is less central. |
| Sonar AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Deep code quality plus security (SAST/SCA) with a mature IDE, server, and cloud footprint. | Heritage is code quality; supply-chain and runtime concerns are less central than code analysis. |
| Veracode AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works → (source) | Established SAST/DAST/SCA with ASPM (Risk Manager) and strong policy, compliance, and remediation guidance. | Historically scan-service oriented; developer-native speed is emphasized less than governance. |