Trust profileHow to read thisFive separate questions a buyer actually asks, each answered with its own evidence and a link to the source. There is deliberately no overall score: a single number invites comparison it cannot support, and would mostly reflect how much of Qodo we have managed to scan rather than anything about the vendor.
Not checked means we have not looked yet, and is never counted against a vendor. Limited means we did look, but found only one line of evidence — enough to report, not enough to corroborate.
checked 12 of 16 signals
Limited
Independently verified
Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?
checked 3 of 4
1 independent source(s) corroborate this vendor's claims.
How much this vendor volunteers before you have to ask.
No trust center found
Data coverage: 27/100What this measures (and doesn't)
Not a quality rating or endorsement — a measure of how much verified, disclosed data we actually have about this vendor. A low score usually means "we don't have much verified information yet," not "this is a bad vendor." Never used to sort or rank vendor lists.
The platform admin controls the formula's weights.
Data coverage profileHow to read thisThe same four components behind the data coverage score above, shaped instead of listed — a vendor strong on verification but thin on buyer feedback looks visibly different from one that's the other way around. Security and feedback plot at the neutral midpoint (50) when there's no data yet (no products tracked, no reviews), matching how the actual score itself treats missing data — not a guess either way.
Buyer reviewsUI-14 — verified-buyer reviewsWritten only by domain-verified buyers at other companies, attributed to their company domain (never their identity), and moderated. Buyer-sourced opinion, clearly separate from the neutral catalog facts above — and never an input to search or comparison ordering.
verified buyers only
No buyer reviews yet.
Reputation ratingUI-20 — anonymous ratingA single anonymous 5-star signal from buyers, resellers, and analysts who've engaged with this vendor — separate from the domain-attributed reviews above. No rater identity is ever shown, not even at company level.
anonymous
No ratings in this window yet.
AI platform for automated code review, security risk detection across the SDLC. 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 →
Security & trust signalsAbout these signalsCertifications are labeled by how well evidenced each one is — confirmed in a public registry, stated by the vendor, or merely detected on a page — and every claim links to its source. Security headers are checked live against the vendor's homepage, re-checked every 90 days. These are independent signals and are not blended into a single score.
9 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage
Certifications & compliance claimsWhat the tiers meanVerified in a public registry — we confirmed this against an authoritative public registry (FedRAMP Marketplace, CSA STAR) and re-check it by the registry's own identifier. Stated by the vendor — the vendor says it on a page they control; a sourced claim about themselves, not an independent check. Detected on a page — found during automated enrichment, neither registry-confirmed nor stated on the vendor's own site.
Some certifications have no public registry at all — SOC 2 and HIPAA among them. For those, “not registry-verified” is not a shortfall and means nothing about the vendor.
Some of these (SOC 2, HIPAA and similar) have no public registry, so no one can independently verify them — that is a fact about the framework, not about this vendor.
Security headers (5/5) — checked 8/14/2026
✓ Strict-Transport-Security
✓ Content-Security-Policy
✓ X-Frame-Options
Status historyAbout this timelineEvery incident detected on this vendor's own public status page since we started watching it — sourced from the same structural check as the status chip above, checked roughly hourly (every 5 minutes while an incident is active), never inferred. A resolution requires a real check confirming "operational" again; an incident with no resolution yet shown is still ongoing as of the most recent check.
No outages recorded since we started watching (first checked Aug 14, 2026, 5:55 AM).
Recent news (1)Where this comes fromCollected automatically from Qodo's own public feeds — a GitHub release feed, changelog, status page or company blog. Each headline links to the original source. Nothing here is written or reviewed by 0-Doubt, and this list is not a complete record of what the vendor has shipped: it only covers what they publish in a machine-readable feed.
Known CVEs (1)About this listSourced from the public NVD database, matched by vendor name. This is a name-based match, not exact version tracking — always check the linked NVD record for affected versions before drawing conclusions. “New” means published within the last 30 days. “Actively exploited” means CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog confirms real-world exploitation, not just a theoretical severity score.
A path traversal vulnerability in all versions of the Qodo Qodo Gen IDE enables a threat actor to read arbitrary local files in and outside of current projects on an end user’s system. The vulnerabili…
Product information on this page is auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public sources and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst, unless an item is individually labelled otherwise. How trust works →
