Legit Security vs GitHub Advanced Security for AI code security

ANSWER FIRST

Legit Security scores 4.4 and GitHub Advanced Security 2.9 on our AI code security criteria, so Legit Security ranks higher on the published weights. Legit leads on AI code and assistant coverage, endpoint deployment and tamper resistance, governance and policy control and remediation and ASPM depth; GHAS leads on developer experience and pricing and buying clarity. The widest gap is endpoint deployment and tamper resistance, where Legit scores 5.0 against 1.5.

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

How do Legit Security and GitHub Advanced Security score side by side?

Legit Security and GitHub Advanced Security: editorial assessment, 0-5. Last reviewed October 2026.
Criterion	Weight	Legit Security	GitHub Advanced Security	Edge
Coverage of AI-generated code and AI coding assistants	25%	5.0	3.0	Legit
Endpoint deployment and tamper resistance	20%	5.0	1.5	Legit
Governance and policy control for the CISO	20%	4.5	2.0	Legit
Developer experience and low friction	15%	3.5	4.5	GHAS
Pricing and buying clarity	10%	2.5	4.5	GHAS
Remediation and ASPM depth	10%	5.0	3.5	Legit
Weighted total		4.4	2.9

Legit Security leads on 4 criteria, GitHub Advanced Security leads on 2, and 0 are tied.

Legit Security

diff --verdict legit-security · reviewed 2026-09

@@ strengths @@

Strength:VibeGuard 2.0 (3 Aug 2026) discovers coding agents on the developer endpoint, blocks dangerous operations, secures MCP use and resists tampering. [source]
Strength:Named support for Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf and MCP-based assistants. Codex: supported (per Legit). [source]
Strength:Runs SAST and SCA inside the IDE and keeps secrets from being shared with AI systems during generation. [source]
Strength:Secrets scanning covers Git history, Jira, Confluence, Slack and developers' personal GitHub accounts. [source]
Strength:ASPM core pulls in existing scanners and de-duplicates findings, scored by business and exposure context. [source]

@@ limitations @@

Limitation:No prices, pricing unit or free tier published. [source]
Limitation:No self-serve start for a single developer or a small team. [source]
Limitation:Reachability is not the headline prioritization method on the pages reviewed. [source]

GitHub Advanced Security

diff --verdict github-advanced-security · reviewed 2026-09

@@ strengths @@

Strength:Published prices: GitHub Secret Protection $19 and GitHub Code Security $30 per active committer per month. [source]
Strength:Copilot coding agent runs CodeQL, Advisory Database and secret scanning checks on its own changes, no GHAS license needed. [source]
Strength:Push protection blocks commits that contain secrets; AI-detected secrets included. [source]
Strength:Copilot Autofix suggests fixes for code scanning alerts. [source]

@@ limitations @@

Limitation:No controls for third-party assistants such as Cursor or Claude Code on the pages reviewed. [source]
Limitation:For repositories on GitHub, on GitHub Team or GitHub Enterprise Cloud plans. [source]

How do Legit Security and GitHub Advanced Security cover AI code and coding assistants?

Legit Security: VibeGuard discovers every AI model, code assistant, MCP server and skill on developer endpoints and runs SAST and SCA in the IDE. Legit names Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf and Amazon Q Developer. Codex: supported (per Legit).

GitHub Advanced Security: CodeQL scans every pull request whoever wrote it, and the Copilot coding agent checks its own changes; Copilot is the only assistant named, and there is no discovery of other agents or MCP servers.

Assistants named on their public pages: Legit Security: Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf and OpenAI Codex (Codex: supported (per Legit)); GitHub Advanced Security: GitHub Copilot.

Where do their controls run on the developer machine?

Legit Security: VibeGuard 2.0 is built "as a full desktop app, and not as a plugin", and its anti-tampering stops agents or threat actors "from disabling VibeGuard". A secrets MCP backed by the OS keychain scopes credentials to the session and keeps them out of agent history and memory.

GitHub Advanced Security: Runs on GitHub at push and pull request; no endpoint agent is described.

How much control does the security team get?

Legit Security: A central management console lets security teams approve, block or flag assistants, models and MCP servers and enforce custom or built-in command policies. Audit-log detail specific to VibeGuard is not covered on the public pages reviewed; the platform states an audit trail for policy compliance. Ask Legit for specifics during evaluation.

GitHub Advanced Security: Organization-level security overview, campaigns and push protection; agent checks cover GitHub's own Copilot coding agent, not third-party assistants.

How do they fit the developer's workflow?

Legit Security: Reaches developers through the IDE, a CLI and MCP, and surfaces dangerous operations for the developer to decide rather than blocking them silently, but there is no free or self-serve tier.

GitHub Advanced Security: Native to pull requests on GitHub.

How do they fix and prioritize findings?

Legit Security: Agentic remediation fixes first-party SAST and dependency (SCA) findings and opens pull requests; risk is ranked by business context and reachability, and findings from existing scanners are consolidated.

GitHub Advanced Security: Copilot Autofix suggests fixes and security campaigns organize remediation; no reachability or business-context scoring is described.

How do they compare on price?

Legit Security: free tier: No (free trial on request); lowest published paid option: AWS Marketplace: $60,000 for 12 months, all modules, 100 users (marketplace price); pricing unit: Users (marketplace bundle).

GitHub Advanced Security: free tier: Free for public repositories (code scanning, secret scanning, Dependabot alerts); lowest published paid option: $19 (Secret Protection) or $30 (Code Security) per active committer per month; pricing unit: Active committer.

Source: Legit Security pricing · Reviewed Sep 2026

Source: GitHub Advanced Security pricing · Reviewed Sep 2026

Which should you choose?

Choose Legit Security if AI code and assistant coverage and endpoint deployment and tamper resistance matter most: Legit scores 5.0 and 5.0 there, against 3.0 and 1.5 for GHAS. Choose GitHub Advanced Security if developer experience and pricing and buying clarity matter most: GHAS scores 4.5 and 4.5 there, against 3.5 and 2.5 for Legit.

Frequently asked questions

Is Legit Security or GitHub Advanced Security better for AI code security?

Legit Security scores 4.4 and GitHub Advanced Security 2.9 on our AI code security criteria, so Legit Security ranks higher on the published weights. Legit leads on 4 of 6 criteria and GHAS on 2; 0 are tied. Which is better depends on which criteria matter most to you; the calculator on this site re-weights them.

How do Legit Security and GitHub Advanced Security price their plans?

Legit Security: free tier: No (free trial on request); lowest published paid option: AWS Marketplace: $60,000 for 12 months, all modules, 100 users (marketplace price). GitHub Advanced Security: free tier: Free for public repositories (code scanning, secret scanning, Dependabot alerts); lowest published paid option: $19 (Secret Protection) or $30 (Code Security) per active committer per month. Prices as published on vendor pages and marketplace listings, reviewed 2026-10-11.

Which AI coding assistants do Legit Security and GitHub Advanced Security name?

On the pages we reviewed, Legit Security names Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf and OpenAI Codex (Codex: supported (per Legit)) and GitHub Advanced Security names GitHub Copilot. '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

Legit Security

GitHub Advanced Security

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