How we rate AI code security tools
ANSWER FIRST
We score each tool 0 to 5 on six weighted criteria: coverage of AI-generated code and AI coding assistants (25%), endpoint deployment and tamper resistance (20%), governance and policy control for the CISO (20%), developer experience (15%), pricing and buying clarity (10%) and remediation and ASPM depth (10%). Scores are editorial and research-based, built from public vendor documentation and review-platform data, last reviewed 2026-10-11.
Editorial assessment · Compiled from vendor product, docs, pricing and marketplace pages · Rated October 2026
What do we score?
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage of AI-generated code and AI coding assistants | 25% | Which coding assistants and agents the vendor names as supported, whether it discovers agents, models, MCP servers and skills across the organization (agent and MCP discovery), and whether AI-written code is scanned (SAST, SCA, secrets) as it is written. |
| Endpoint deployment and tamper resistance | 20% | Whether controls run on the developer machine across every agent, as an endpoint application rather than one plugin per tool; whether they resist being disabled or bypassed; and how secrets are kept away from agents on the endpoint (secret handling). |
| Governance and policy control for the CISO | 20% | A central place for security teams to approve, block or flag assistants, models and MCP servers, policies scoped to teams or machines, and an audit trail or evidence of what agents did (governance policy and audit). |
| Developer experience and low friction | 15% | IDE, CLI, pull request and MCP presence, whether a developer can start without a sales process, and whether controls stay out of the developer's way. |
| Pricing and buying clarity | 10% | Whether a buyer can model cost from public pages: published prices score highest, a marketplace list price or a published pricing unit scores partially, contact sales scores lowest. |
| Remediation and ASPM depth | 10% | Fixes and pull requests generated for findings, prioritization by reachability and business context, and consolidation of findings from other scanners. |
Sub-criteria we check inside these: agent and MCP discovery (coverage), secret handling on the endpoint (endpoint), and governance policy and audit (governance).
Why coverage and the endpoint carry 45% between them: the risk this site measures is code and actions produced by AI coding agents, often with what OWASP calls excessive agency (LLM06: too much functionality, permissions or autonomy). Controls that see every agent and run where the agent runs address that risk directly; remediation and ASPM depth still matter, but older AppSec tools already cover them.
How is the total calculated?
Each criterion is scored from 0 to 5 in half-point steps. The total is the weighted average: the sum of each score multiplied by its weight, divided by 100. We sort by the exact total and display it to one decimal. Tools with the same displayed total share a rank, shown as T-2, T-4 and so on.
total = (aiCoverage*25 + endpoint*20 + governance*20 + devExperience*15 + buyingClarity*10 + remediation*10) / 100Legit Security: (5.0×25 + 5.0×20 + 4.5×20 + 3.5×15 + 2.5×10 + 5.0×10) / 100 = 4.42
What does each score level mean?
- 5: named, documented capability that covers the criterion fully on the pages reviewed.
- 4: documented capability with a visible gap.
- 3: partial capability or a capability described without detail.
- 2: little public evidence, or a capability limited to one product or plan.
- 1: not published.
- 0: absent.
- Endpoint deployment: 5 is an endpoint application covering every agent with stated tamper resistance; 4 is endpoint-wide coverage without stated tamper resistance; 3 is hooks into agents on the developer machine; 2.5 is a plugin or MCP server per tool; 2 is an IDE plugin only; 1.5 is server-side only.
Half points sit between levels.
What evidence do we use?
Vendor websites, product pages, documentation, pricing pages and press releases, plus marketplace listings and Gartner Peer Insights market pages, read 2026-10-11 (ratings are context only). Each score cites its source on the review page. If a vendor does not publish a fact, we say so and score it on what is public. We do not use vendor-supplied scores, analyst placements or customer counts.
Disclosure
Disclosure: This site is produced with support from Legit Security, which is ranked here. Scores are editorial and research-based, built from public vendor documentation and review-platform data.
What are the limitations?
NOTE
- Public sources only. We did not install, run or benchmark any tool.
- A capability not named on a vendor's public pages scores lower even if the product has it. Vendors can send corrections with a public source.
- Pricing and features change often. This edition was last reviewed on 2026-10-11.
The September 2026 ranking, with its original seven criteria, is kept at /previous-ranking.
Where does Legit Security trail other tools?
| Criterion | Legit Security | Leader(s) | Leader score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governance and policy control for the CISO | 4.5 | Backslash Security | 5.0 |
| Developer experience and low friction | 3.5 | Snyk, Semgrep, GitHub Advanced Security, Aikido Security | 4.5 |
| Pricing and buying clarity | 2.5 | Aikido Security | 5.0 |
How do we handle corrections?
Email editors@bestaicodesecurity.com with the page, the claim and a public source. We check and update within five working days and note the change on the page's last-reviewed line.