Apiiro vs Cycode for AI code security

ANSWER FIRST

Apiiro scores 3.4 and Cycode 3.7 on our AI code security criteria, so Cycode ranks higher on the published weights. Cycode leads on endpoint deployment and tamper resistance, governance and policy control, developer experience and pricing and buying clarity; they tie on AI code and assistant coverage and remediation and ASPM depth. The widest gap is endpoint deployment and tamper resistance, where Cycode scores 3.0 against 2.5.

Editorial assessment · Compiled from vendor product, docs, pricing and marketplace pages · Rated October 2026

How do Apiiro and Cycode score side by side?

Apiiro and Cycode: editorial assessment, 0-5. Last reviewed October 2026.
Criterion	Weight	Apiiro	Cycode	Edge
Coverage of AI-generated code and AI coding assistants	25%	4.5	4.5	Tie
Endpoint deployment and tamper resistance	20%	2.5	3.0	Cycode
Governance and policy control for the CISO	20%	3.5	4.0	Cycode
Developer experience and low friction	15%	3.0	3.5	Cycode
Pricing and buying clarity	10%	1.0	1.5	Cycode
Remediation and ASPM depth	10%	5.0	5.0	Tie
Weighted total		3.4	3.7

Apiiro leads on 0 criteria, Cycode leads on 4, and 2 are tied.

Apiiro

diff --verdict apiiro · reviewed 2026-09

@@ strengths @@

Strength:Software Architecture Graph and Risk Graph connect code changes to runtime context. [source]
Strength:Guardian Agent adds secure prompt enrichment and pre-commit prevention. [source]
Strength:Works with Cursor, GitHub Copilot and Claude Code. [source]
Strength:Deep Code Analysis detects material code changes. [source]

@@ limitations @@

Limitation:No pricing published and no free commercial tier. [source]
Limitation:The MCP server requires an Apiiro account with API access. [source]

Cycode

diff --verdict cycode · reviewed 2026-09

@@ strengths @@

Strength:IDE guardrails intercept secrets, file context, prompts and tool calls before they reach AI services. [source]
Strength:AI-BOM tracks .cursorrules and .windsurfrules files, MCP servers and AI API keys, with commit provenance. [source]
Strength:AI Exploitability Agent confirms CVE reachability; AI Fix Agent produces PR-ready fixes. [source]
Strength:Full scanner set: SAST, SCA, secrets, containers, IaC and CI/CD posture. [source]
Strength:Cycode's AI Guardrails names Claude Code and Cursor. [source]

@@ limitations @@

Limitation:No prices published; pricing is based on active developers and AI usage. [source]

How do Apiiro and Cycode cover AI code and coding assistants?

Apiiro: Detects risk across AI coding agents, IDE extensions and MCP servers, works with Cursor, GitHub Copilot and Claude Code, and scans with AI SAST and AI SCA.

Cycode: The AI inventory covers code assistants such as GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf and Tabnine, plus MCP servers, models and AI secrets, alongside SAST, SCA, secrets, container and IaC scanning. IDE hooks support Cursor and Claude Code so far.

Assistants named on their public pages: Apiiro: Claude Code, Cursor and GitHub Copilot; Cycode: Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot and Windsurf.

Where do their controls run on the developer machine?

Apiiro: The Apiiro CLI brings the platform into the terminal and into AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Cursor and Copilot; an endpoint agent and tamper resistance are not described.

Cycode: IDE hooks enforce guardrails such as "Block Unauthorized MCPs" and "Restrict MCP Execution to Localhost Only", starting with Cursor and Claude Code; an endpoint agent and tamper resistance are not described.

How much control does the security team get?

Apiiro: Guardian Agent adds pre-commit prevention and secure prompt enrichment; policy to approve or block specific agents or MCP servers is not described in detail.

Cycode: Three-state authorization (Needs Review, Authorized, Unauthorized) with violations for AI tools and MCP servers; an audit log of agent activity is not described.

How do they fit the developer's workflow?

Apiiro: Developer surface through the CLI, MCP and AutoFix; no free tier for commercial teams (AutoFix is free for open source maintainers).

Cycode: IDE and MCP presence and a free trial, but no free tier.

How do they fix and prioritize findings?

Apiiro: A Software Architecture Graph and Risk Graph tie code to runtime, and AutoFix generates fixes for SAST, SCA, secrets, container and IaC risks.

Cycode: An AI Exploitability Agent checks reachability, an AI Fix and Remediation Agent produces PR-ready fixes, and Maestro orchestrates 120+ connectors through ConnectorX.

How do they compare on price?

Apiiro: free tier: No (AutoFix free for open source maintainers); lowest published paid option: Contact sales; pricing unit: Not published.

Cycode: free tier: No (free trial offered); lowest published paid option: Contact sales; pricing unit: Active developers and AI usage.

Source: Apiiro pricing · Reviewed Sep 2026

Source: Cycode pricing · Reviewed Sep 2026

Which should you choose?

Choose Apiiro if remediation and ASPM depth and AI code and assistant coverage matter most: Apiiro scores 5.0 and 4.5 there, against 5.0 and 4.5 for Cycode. Choose Cycode if governance and policy control and developer experience matter most: Cycode scores 4.0 and 3.5 there, against 3.5 and 3.0 for Apiiro.

Frequently asked questions

Is Apiiro or Cycode better for AI code security?

Apiiro scores 3.4 and Cycode 3.7 on our AI code security criteria, so Cycode ranks higher on the published weights. Apiiro leads on 0 of 6 criteria and Cycode on 4; 2 are tied. Which is better depends on which criteria matter most to you; the calculator on this site re-weights them.

How do Apiiro and Cycode price their plans?

Apiiro: free tier: No (AutoFix free for open source maintainers); lowest published paid option: Contact sales. Cycode: free tier: No (free trial offered); lowest published paid option: Contact sales. Prices as published on vendor pages and marketplace listings, reviewed 2026-10-11.

Which AI coding assistants do Apiiro and Cycode name?

On the pages we reviewed, Apiiro names Claude Code, Cursor and GitHub Copilot and Cycode names Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot and Windsurf. 'Not named' means we did not find the assistant on the vendor's pages; it does not prove the tool cannot work with it.

Read the full reviews

Where next?

More head-to-heads

Sources reviewed

Apiiro

Cycode

Last reviewed October 2026. Editorial assessment from public vendor material; no hands-on testing.