How Verdict Runtime compares with Snyk and CodeQL on real, labelled vulnerable applications: dependency findings, code findings and severity agreement.
We ran Verdict Runtime head to head against Snyk Code and GitHub CodeQL, on seven deliberately vulnerable applications across six languages. Each app was scored against its own published answer key. Static scanning was only the first round.
| Benchmark app | Labelled flaws | Verdict Runtime | CodeQL | Snyk Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Python (Django) | 29 | 24 | 16 | 16 |
| Ruby on Rails | 17 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| JavaScript (Node app 1) | 17 | 10 | 6 | 8 |
| JavaScript (Node app 2) | 9 | 6 | 6 | 3 |
| Go | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| C# / .NET | 36 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Java | 40 | 19 | 26 | 25 |
| All seven | 152 | 78 | 66 | 65 |
A flaw counts only when the right vulnerability class is reported within three lines of the labelled spot. Java is the one language where both beat us, and we show it. Both tools ran at their documented security settings. Snyk is a trademark of Snyk Limited; CodeQL is a trademark of GitHub, Inc.
| Capability | Verdict Runtime | Snyk Code & CodeQL |
|---|---|---|
| Static code analysis | Yes | Yes |
| Proof that a finding is exploitable in your running app | Yes | No |
| Logged-in pentesting: broken access control, token forgery, OWASP API Top 10 | Yes | No |
| Live attacks on your AI features: OWASP LLM Top 10 and agentic risks | Yes | No |
| Business-logic testing: replayed checkouts, double-spent coupons | Yes | No |
| WAF, gateway and detection rules built from your own findings | Yes | No |
One repository, one report, no obligation: the findings, the evidence behind each one, the fixes we can prepare, and an honest note on what we couldn't check.