Veracode scans what you package. WASViking reads the repository.
Veracode built its name on static analysis of packaged builds, and many AppSec programs grew up around it. WASViking Code Security starts from the repository instead: connect GitHub or Bitbucket, switch a repository on, and the platform reads the source, checks dependencies and secrets, and files every weakness with the exact fix, in the same queue as the testing of the running application.
87 const id = req.params.id;
88 const invoice = await Invoice.findById(id);
89 res.json(invoice);
- Line verified against the file at commit 3f9c2e1
- Any signed-in customer can read another customer's invoice
- Fix: scope the query to req.user.accountId
Where the difference shows up in daily work.
Both products find weaknesses in code your team wrote. The difference is what it takes to get a scan, which flaws come back, and what a developer has in hand when a finding opens.
The repository is the input
No build to produce, no artifact to package, no upload step. The platform clones the default branch into an isolated workspace, reads it, and deletes the clone at the end of the run.
Flaws in how access is enforced
The review goes to routes, controllers, handlers and authorization code, where IDOR and broken object and function level authorization live. Each finding names the route, the parameter and the attack.
The fix comes with the finding
Every weakness carries the fix for that exact code, included in Code Security. Every reported line is checked against the real file first, so nobody opens a finding that points at code that is not there.
Code next to what is running
Code findings sit beside the DAST, API and edge findings of the application that ships the code, under the same risk score, SLA clock and tickets. One queue, one owner, one measure of progress.
Five steps before the first finding, or three clicks.
A packaged static scan needs a build that compiles, the right artifacts in the upload and someone who owns that process for every application. Code Security needs a repository connection.
Veracode Static Analysis
Typical path for an upload scan
WASViking® Code Security
From connection to first result
The oldest code is usually the code with no pipeline.
Scanning that depends on a CI workflow covers the repositories that have one. The legacy service nobody deploys, the internal tool and the script repository stay dark, and they tend to hold the riskiest code.
ACME repositories, by pipeline
38 repositories, all monitored by Code Security
In ACME's case, 11 of the 23 high-severity code findings came from the repositories without a pipeline.
Coverage that widens on its own
Files with an open finding are reviewed again on every scan, and the rest of the review budget rotates across the repository, so each run looks somewhere new.
Findings with a stable identity
The same weakness in the same place stays one finding as line numbers move. It reopens on regression and resolves once two consecutive reviews of the file no longer find it.
More coverage first, then a backlog that shrinks.
When ACME switched on the repositories that had no pipeline, open findings went up before they went down. That rise is the point: risk that existed all along, now on the list with an owner and a fix.
ACME open code findings
SAST, dependency and secret findings, weekly. Lower is better.
One report for the code owner
The repository PDF lists every open finding by engine, SAST included, in a format a code owner or an auditor can read without a console account.
Every run on the record
Trigger, branch, commit, duration and outcome are kept for each run, so the question of when this code was last reviewed has a dated answer.
Illustrative data from the ACME demonstration tenant
Every monitored repository, its findings and its last run.
Monitored repositories, open findings by engine and the SAST findings of each repository on one page, next to the rest of the platform.
Capability by capability, what each product delivers.
The Veracode column covers Static Analysis and the capabilities around it. Where both products do the job well, we say so.
| Capability | Veracode | WASViking® Code Security |
|---|---|---|
| Getting code scanned | ||
| What gets analyzed | A packaged build, with compiled binaries for languages such as Java, .NET and C/C++, and an autopackager to help | The source of the default branch, cloned on the platform side. Nothing to build, package or upload Goes further |
| Repositories without a pipeline | GitHub Workflow Integration runs the scans as GitHub Actions workflows | GitHub App or Bitbucket connection. The platform scans on the plan cadence and on pushes to the default branch, with no workflow file in the repository Goes further |
| Pipeline gate | Pipeline Scan that fails the build on new findings above a severity | Sentinel CI gate in GitHub Actions and Bitbucket Pipelines, with results merged into the same repository history as the platform scans On par |
| Finding quality | ||
| What the analysis looks for | Rule-based analysis across a wide range of languages and frameworks | Review focused on the files that carry security logic, with access control flaws such as IDOR and broken object and function level authorization reported with the route and parameter On par |
| Evidence | Flaw with file, line and data path | File and line checked against the real code before reporting, plus why it is exploitable and an attack scenario On par |
| Remediation guidance | Veracode Fix, AI remediation under its own license, for Pipeline Scan findings | The fix for the exact code on every finding, included in Code Security Goes further |
| Around the code | ||
| Open source dependencies | Software Composition Analysis, agent-based or upload | Dependency analysis against OSV and CISA KEV with drift since the previous scan, on every run On par |
| SBOM | SBOM generated from composition analysis | CycloneDX SBOM on every scan, re-checked daily against new advisories and exportable as a signed Evidence Bundle On par |
| The running application | Dynamic Analysis as a separate product on the same platform | Code findings in the same queue as external and internal DAST, API testing and edge telemetry of the same application, with one risk score and one SLA Goes further |
| Ticketing | Issue tracker integrations such as Jira | Two-way Jira and ServiceNow: card and finding close together on a verified fix, with labels and a closure note On par |
| Compliance evidence | Policy compliance reports and the Veracode Verified program | Mapped to PCI DSS 6.2.3 and 6.3.2, ISO 27001, NIST SSDF and LGPD, with Evidence Bundles and Posture Shares an auditor or customer can open On par |
What the same platform does with the same application.
Code is one view of an application. WASViking also tests it while it runs, watches its dependencies after release and records the evidence your customers ask for.
External and internal DAST
Authenticated testing of the running web application and its APIs, internal ones included through the Sentinel agent, without VPN or inbound ports.
Secrets in the history
Hard-coded credentials in the working tree on every run, and in the full history of the default branch when you switch it on, with evidence redacted before storage.
Supply chain after release
The SBOM of each repository is checked every day against new advisories, so a vulnerability published next month reaches the right team without a new scan.
Point both at the same repositories and compare.
The evaluation runs on your own code, so the decision rests on your own findings and not on a benchmark.
Connect the organization
Install the GitHub App or approve the Bitbucket consumer. Nothing changes in your pipelines.
Pick the repositories
Include one you already scan with Veracode and one that never had a pipeline.
Compare the findings
Look at what each one finds in the authorization code, and at what a developer can do with each finding without asking anyone.
Connect the tracker
Turn on Jira or ServiceNow for one team and follow a finding from card to verified fix.
Frequently asked questions
Can Code Security replace Veracode Static Analysis?
For teams on GitHub or Bitbucket who want continuous review of their repositories, yes: static analysis, dependencies, secrets and SBOM run in one product, next to the testing of the running application. Teams that depend on binary analysis of third-party or compiled-only code, or on an IDE plugin, should keep that part in mind during the evaluation.
Does our code leave our control?
Each run clones the default branch into an isolated, short-lived workspace on a dedicated worker. Nothing from the repository is executed, and the clone is deleted at the end of the run. Only findings, the component list, redacted evidence and the run record are kept.
How are false positives kept down?
Every reported line is checked against the real file before it reaches you, and a weakness that cannot be grounded in the code is discarded. A finding also resolves on its own when two consecutive reviews of the file no longer see it.
Can we keep our pipeline gate?
Yes. The Sentinel CI step runs in GitHub Actions and Bitbucket Pipelines, and its results merge with the platform scans under the same repository name.
How is it licensed?
Code Security is included on the Pro plan and above. Each monitored repository counts as one unit against the plan allowance, whatever its size and however often it is scanned. Our team prepares a quote from your real repository list.
Veracode and Veracode Fix are trademarks of Veracode, Inc. WASViking LLC is not affiliated with or endorsed by Veracode, Inc.
The Veracode column reflects publicly available product documentation reviewed in September 2026. Features, editions and licensing terms vary by contract and change over time, so validate each row in your own evaluation. ACME figures on this page are illustrative data from a demonstration tenant, not customer results.