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
|
Same
|
||
|
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
|
257 CVEs
reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10
CVE labs
worldwide
|
0 CVEs reported to MITRE
|
|
|
Compliance
|
SOC 2 Type I and SOC 2 Type II | ||
|
Bug Bounty
|
|||
|
Visits
|
|||
|
Authority
|
|||
|
Vulnerability
database
|
None
|
||
|
Content
|
Same
|
||
|
Knowledge
base
|
13 KB sections, 5
in common and 8 additional
|
5 KB sections, all in common
|
|
|
Community
|
No
|
||
|
Sync
training
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Async
training
|
3 product
use courses, all free
|
No
|
|
|
Distribution
|
Same
|
||
| Marketplaces | AWS and GitHub | ||
|
Freemium
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Free trial
|
|||
|
Demo
|
|||
|
Pricing
|
|||
|
Pricing tiers
|
1 plan
|
1 plan
|
3 plans (team, business,
audit). First transparent
|
|
Minimum
commit
|
|||
|
Minimum payment
period
|
|||
|
Minimum
capabilities
|
|||
|
Minimum
scope
|
1 group
|
1 author
|
|
|
Pricing
drivers
|
|||
|
Minimum monthly
payment
|
Service
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
PTaaS
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Reverse engineering
|
No
|
Yes | No |
|
Secure code review
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Pivoting
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Exploitation
|
No
|
No
|
|
|
Manual
reattacks
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Zero-day
vulnerabilities
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
SLA
|
No information available | ||
|
Min
availability
|
>=99.95% per minute LTM
|
No information available
|
|
|
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 65 standards, 3 in
common and 62 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
|
Yes | ||
|
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
|
|
|
Priority
criteria
|
Same
|
||
|
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
|
24 package managers, 15 in common and 9 additional
|
24 package managers, 15 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
|
|
|
Environments
|
Left & Right
(included)
|
Same
|
|
|
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
|
4 functions,
all in common
|
||
|
Open-source
|
Not applicable
|
No
|
|
|
Provisioning as Code
|
|||
|
Deployment
|
SaaS and on-premises
|
||
| Regions | |||
|
Status
|
|||
|
Incidents
|
Integrations
|
Attribute
|
Essential
|
Advanced
|
Codacy
|
|
SCM
|
4, 3 in
common and 1
additional
|
3,
all in common
|
|
|
Binary repositories
|
None
|
None
|
|
|
Ticketing
|
3, 1 in common and 2
additional
|
1 in common |
|
|
ChatOps
|
None |
None
|
|
|
IDE
|
3, all in common
|
19, 3 in common and 16 additional |
|
|
CI/CD
|
20, 3 in
common and 17 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 Jul 31, 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.