What are the main Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors?

Representative vendors include Semgrep, Veracode, Snyk Code, Checkmarx One. B4 Pro scores the full set.

How does AI affect SAST rule development?

LLM-assisted rule generation has made writing custom Semgrep rules meaningfully faster, which lowers the maintenance cost of a self-built pipeline. This is one reason the build-vs-buy question is actively live again in 2025–2026, even for teams that previously defaulted to commercial platforms.

Dev & Engineering · Engineering, IT & AI

Should you build or buy Static Application Security Testing (SAST)?

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) software analyzes source code, bytecode, or binaries without executing the program to detect security vulnerabilities — SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, and similar weaknesses — before they reach production. It runs in CI pipelines to give developers fast feedback on security issues as code is written, not after it ships.

The build-vs-buy decision for Static Application Security Testing turns on how deep your vulnerability analysis needs to go and how much the open-source tooling has already closed the capability gap; the specifics of your compliance requirements and codebase complexity decide it.

Domain: Dev & Engineering
Function: Engineering, IT & AI
Industries: Cross-industry

Last assessed June 2026 · re-scored quarterly via The Continuum.

Build it, buy it, or bridge?

	Build it	Buy it	Bridge (buy, then extend)
Cost shape	Semgrep CE free; custom rule authoring is ongoing labor	Checkmarx/Veracode contracts run $40K–$200K/year	OSS for CI enforcement plus commercial for taint reporting
Time to value	Semgrep rules deployable in a sprint; taint analysis takes months	Commercial platform onboards in days with pre-built rules	Fast baseline with OSS; layer deep analysis when audits require it
Differentiation captured	Custom rules for your API patterns add 20%+ coverage	Generic rule libraries cover most common vulnerability classes	Custom rules on OSS engine, vendor for compliance reporting
AI feasibility today	LLM-assisted rule generation lowers the custom-rules barrier substantially	Vendor taint-flow engines have no open-source production equivalent	AI-written Semgrep rules plus vendor inter-procedural analysis
Who it fits	Teams with known security surface and Semgrep already blocking key CVEs	AppSec teams needing compliance-grade taint reporting and audit trails	Organizations growing toward SOC 2 or PCI with existing OSS foundation

The B4 call

B4 has a verdict for Static Application Security Testing (SAST).

Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware, with the five-dimension scorecard and the reasoning behind it. Unlock the call, and every other category, with B4 Pro.

Unlock the verdict in B4 Pro →

When building Static Application Security Testing (SAST) makes sense

Building your SAST pipeline on Semgrep Community Edition makes sense when your security surface is well-understood and the vulnerabilities you care most about — SQL injection, path traversal, common XSS patterns — are catchable with pattern-matching rules. Semgrep runs in CI for free, and writing custom rules targeting your internal APIs or framework-specific patterns is a documented, tractable task. LLM assistance has made rule authoring significantly faster, so the labor cost of maintaining a custom rule library has dropped. Teams that can define what "secure" means for their codebase and are comfortable owning the rule lifecycle get solid CI enforcement without a five-figure contract. The build case gets more compelling as your team accumulates institutional knowledge about which vulnerability classes matter for your stack — that knowledge becomes rule sets that no vendor ships out of the box.

When buying Static Application Security Testing (SAST) makes sense

Buying a commercial SAST platform earns its keep when you need deep inter-procedural taint analysis — tracing attacker-controlled data across function call boundaries through a large codebase — and when compliance reporting is a real requirement rather than aspirational. Checkmarx One, Veracode, and Semgrep's commercial tier all ship taint-flow engines that no open-source tool has matched at production parity. For teams under SOC 2, PCI, or FedRAMP obligations, the audit trail and compliance-grade findings reporting that commercial platforms generate isn't easily replicated. If your AppSec team is small and the security surface is broad and complex, the vendor's pre-built rule libraries and enterprise scanning speed reduce the operational burden enough to justify the cost. The question is whether your codebase needs depth of analysis that pattern matching can't reach.

Semgrep's open-source release changed the calculus for a lot of teams. You can write custom rules targeting your internal API patterns, run them in CI for free, and catch the surface-level vulnerabilities (SQL injection, path traversal, XSS) without a contract. Where Checkmarx One and Veracode still hold ground is deep inter-procedural taint analysis, which traces attacker-controlled data across function call boundaries through an entire codebase. That's a meaningfully different analysis than pattern matching, and no OSS tool has shipped it to production parity yet.

Buying earns its keep when your AppSec team needs compliance-grade taint reporting, audit trails for SOC 2 or PCI, and doesn't want to maintain a custom rule library across multiple languages. The build case gets serious when your team's security surface is well-understood, Semgrep CE already blocks the vulnerabilities you care about, and you're weighing a five-figure contract against writing a few hundred rules. LLM-assisted rule generation is starting to make the custom-rules path less painful, which is one reason this buy-vs-build question is live again now.

Representative vendors

SemgrepCheckmarx One and 3 more, scored in B4 Pro

B4 Pro

Get B4's actual call on Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

→ B4's call for Static Application Security Testing (SAST): Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware
→ The five-dimension scorecard and the scoring rationale
→ All 5 vendors with pricing and positioning
→ Quarterly re-scores that feed the MCP live, so your agents always query the current call
→ MCP server plus API and SDK access, and CSV/JSON export

Upgrade to B4 Pro

Prefer to read first? The book covers the framework end to end.

Frequently asked

What is Static Application Security Testing (SAST)?: Static Application Security Testing (SAST) software analyzes source code, bytecode, or binaries without executing the program to detect security vulnerabilities — SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, and similar weaknesses — before they reach production. It runs in CI pipelines to give developers fast feedback on security issues as code is written, not after it ships.
When does building Static Application Security Testing (SAST) make sense?: Building on Semgrep Community Edition makes sense when your security surface is well-understood, your key vulnerability classes are catchable with pattern-matching rules, and you're willing to own the rule lifecycle. LLM-assisted rule authoring has lowered the labor cost significantly, making the custom-build path more accessible than it was a few years ago.
When does buying Static Application Security Testing (SAST) make sense?: Buying makes sense when you need deep inter-procedural taint analysis that traces attacker-controlled data across complex codebases, or when compliance-grade reporting for SOC 2, PCI, or FedRAMP audits is a real requirement. Commercial platforms also earn their keep when your AppSec team is small and the security surface is large enough that vendor-maintained rule libraries reduce the operational burden meaningfully.
What are the main Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors?: Representative vendors include Semgrep, Veracode, Snyk Code, Checkmarx One. B4 Pro scores the full set.
How does AI affect SAST rule development?: LLM-assisted rule generation has made writing custom Semgrep rules meaningfully faster, which lowers the maintenance cost of a self-built pipeline. This is one reason the build-vs-buy question is actively live again in 2025–2026, even for teams that previously defaulted to commercial platforms.

The B4 Index scores every software category on two axes, strategic differentiation and AI feasibility, to classify it Build, Buy, Bridge, or Beware. See the full methodology.

More in Dev & Engineering

Build or buy DevOps Platform? Build or buy CI/CD? Build or buy Version Control? Build or buy Low-Code / No-Code? Build or buy Infrastructure as Code (IaC)? Build or buy iPaaS? Build or buy API Management? Build or buy SAST? Build or buy DAST? Build or buy Code Quality Analysis? Build or buy Container Registry? Build or buy Release Orchestration?

The Build Report

Bi-weekly analysis of software categories through the B4 Framework. What to build, what to buy, and how to use AI to make better decisions for your company.