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
|
Native ASPMand external scanners
|
||
|
Extras
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Headcount
|
72 | ||
|
Headcount distribution
|
Engineering 42%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 26%
|
Engineering 29%, IT 13%, sales 13%,
marketing 4%, operations 7% and others 34%
|
|
|
Headcount growth
|
+8%, +10%, -8%
|
+7%, +13%, -5%
|
|
|
Headquarters
|
CO and US
|
PT and US
|
|
|
Countries
|
AR, BO, CA, CL, CO, DO, MX, PA, PE and
US
|
PT and UK | |
|
Reputation
|
Same
|
9.37 from 50 reviews over 9 years on
Capterra, G2, Gartner and TrustRadius
|
|
|
Followers
|
Same
|
28K based on the following: Facebook,
Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube
|
|
|
Research firms
|
None
|
None
|
Omdia
|
|
Founded
|
2001 |
2012
|
|
|
Funding
|
Bootstrapped
|
Same
|
$29.4M USD in 5 round from 10 investors
|
|
Acquisitions
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
Revenue
|
10M to 15M
|
5M to 25M
|
|
|
CVEs as CNA Researcher
|
Not applicable, as it is not a CNA
Researcher
|
||
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3
|
SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II | |
|
Bug bounty
|
Yes
|
||
|
Visits
|
21K per month. Top 3: 26% CO, 8% FR,
7% US. Others 59%
|
53K per month. Top 3: 24% US, 11% IN,
6% DE. Others 59%
|
|
|
Authority
|
38 out of 100
|
||
|
Public vulnerability DB
|
Discovered and third-party
|
None
|
|
|
Content
|
Same
|
Blog, documentation, events, news,
webinars and white papers
|
|
| Comprehensive documentation |
13 documentation sections, 5 in common
and 8 additional
|
5 documentation sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync training
|
1 workshop
|
No
|
|
|
Async training
|
3 product use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
Direct
|
|
| Marketplaces | AWS and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Free trial
|
14-day free trial
|
||
|
Demo
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open demo
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Pricing
|
Contact sales, marketplace and public
web
|
||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (team, business, audit). First
transparent
|
|
Minimum term
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum payment period
|
Monthly
|
||
|
Minimum capabilities
|
ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and
secrets
|
Same plus: API
security testing, PTaaS, RE and SCR
|
IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets
|
|
Minimum scope
|
1 author
|
1 developer
|
|
|
Pricing drivers
|
Developers
|
||
|
Minimum monthly payment
|
18 USD
|
||
|
Free implementation
|
No
|
||
|
Free support
|
No
|
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 | ||
|
Minimum 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
|
Employee or freelance
|
|
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, AI and human intelligence
|
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
|
Yes
|
||
|
API
|
REST with JSON
|
||
|
IDE
|
5 functionalities, 4 in common and 1
additional
|
Same, plus 1 functionality
|
4 functionalities, all in common
|
|
CLI
|
Yes
|
||
|
CI/CD
|
Breaks the build
|
||
|
Vulnerability sources
|
4 sources
|
None
|
|
|
Threat model alignment
|
No
|
||
|
Priority criteria
|
CVSS
|
||
|
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
|
24 package managers, 14 in common and
10 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
|
3 functions, all in common
|
|
|
MCP
|
Yes
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as code
|
Yes
|
||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS + on-premises (no tenancy information)
|
||
| Regions |
IE
|
||
|
Status
|
Yes
|
||
|
Incidents
|
4.7 per year
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
SCM
|
6, 3 in common and 3 additional
|
3, all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
1
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2 additional
|
1 in common
|
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
1 |
|
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
|
The latest update to this comparison was on Dec 15, 2025. The primary sources of information were codacy.com and docs.codacy.com, which were supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
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.