Codacy
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to Codacy's? The following comparison table enables you to
discern the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company's
cybersecurity needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions in the dedicated page.
Organization
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
Focus
|
|||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
|||
|
Headcount Distribution
|
|||
|
Headcount Growth
|
|||
|
Headquarters
|
|||
|
Countries
|
PT and UK | ||
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
||
|
Followers
|
Same
|
||
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Founded
|
2001 | ||
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$29.4M USD in 5 round from 10 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
|||
|
CVE
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II | ||
|
Bug Bounty
|
|||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability database
|
None
|
||
|
Content
|
|||
|
Knowledge base
|
13 KB
sections, 5 in common and 8 additional
|
5 KB sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Open Demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (team, business, audit). First transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
|||
|
Minimum payment period
|
|||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
||
|
Pricing drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
No | |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
Continuous zero-day vulnerability research
|
None
|
|
SLA
|
No | ||
|
Min availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
None
|
|
|
After-sale guarantees
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Accreditations
|
None
|
||
|
Hacker certifications
|
Not
applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Type of contract
|
Employee
|
Same
|
|
|
Endpoint control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Channel control
|
Not applicable
|
Total
|
Not applicable
|
|
Standards
|
Some requirements from 67 standards,
3 in common and 64 additional
|
All requirements from the same standards
|
3 standards, all in common
|
|
Detection method
|
Automated tools and AI
|
||
|
Remediation
|
5, 4 in common and 1 additional
|
Same, plus 1
|
4, all in common
|
|
Outputs
|
5, 1 in common and 4 additional
|
Same, plus 2
|
2, 1 in common and 1 additional
|
Product
|
Attribute
|
Essential |
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
ASPM
|
|||
|
API
|
|||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 4 in common and 1
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
4 functionalities, all in common
|
|
CLI
|
|||
|
CI/CD
|
|||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
None
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
|||
|
Custom prioritization
|
No
|
||
|
Scanner origin
|
External (ZAP for DAST; Checkov for IaC; Semgrep, Bandit, Brakeman, Flawfinder, and Gosec for SAST; Checkov and Semgrep for Secrets; and Trivy for Containers, Secrets and SCA) | ||
|
SCA
|
23 package
managers, 14 in common and 9 additional
|
||
|
AI security
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability
|
12 languages
|
No
|
|
|
Reachability type
|
Not applicable
|
||
|
SBOM
|
22 package managers, 17 in common and 5
additional
|
24 package managers, 17 in common and 7
additional
|
|
|
Malware detection
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Autofix on components
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Containers
|
4 distributions, 2 in common
and 2 additional
|
15 distributions, 2 in common and 13
additional
|
|
|
Source SAST
(languages)
|
12,
all in common
|
29, 12 in common and 17 additional
|
|
|
Source
SAST
(frameworks)
|
22,
6 in common and 16 additional
|
7, 6 in common and 1 additional |
|
|
Custom rules
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
IaC
|
6, 4 in common and 2 additional
|
4, 2 in common and 2 additional
|
6, all in common
|
|
Binary SAST
|
1 type of binary
|
Same, plus 2 types of binaries
|
No
|
|
DAST
|
7 attack
surface types, 3 in common and 4 additional
|
4 attack surface types, 3 in common and 1 additional |
|
|
API security Testing
|
No
|
4 types of APIs, 3 in common and 1
additional
|
3 types of APIs, all in common
|
|
IAST
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
CSPM
|
Yes |
No
|
|
|
ASM
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Secrets
|
15 secrets types, 11 in common and 4
additional
|
Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets
exploitability
|
31 secrets types, 11 in common and 20
additional
|
|
AI
|
3 functions, all in common
|
||
|
MCP
|
|||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
|||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and on-premises
|
||
| Regions | |||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
SCM
|
6,
3 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
||
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
3,
all in common
|
19, 3 in common and 16 additional |
|
|
CI/CD
|
21, 3
in common and 18 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
SCA
|
Native powered by Trivy |
||
|
Container
|
Native powered by Trivy |
||
|
SAST
|
Native powered by Semgrep, Bandit, Brakeman, Flawfinder and Golang |
||
|
DAST
|
Native powered by ZAP |
||
|
IAST
|
None |
None
|
None
|
|
Cloud
|
None
|
||
|
CSPM
|
None | ||
|
Secrets
|
Native powered by Checkov, Semgrep and Trivy |
||
|
Remediation
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Bug bounty
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Vulnerability management
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Compliance
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
References were last checked on Nov 19, 2025.
Free trial
Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid
Attacks' automated security testing! Start your 21-day free
trial and discover the benefits of the Continuous Hacking Essential plan. If you prefer the
Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.