Cycode

Name: Cycode
Brand: Cycode

Application Security for the AI Revolution

Est 2019|Valuation $79.6M|Raised $80.6M|22 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 20K|Web traffic 4K|FTEs 158|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsApplication Security Testing (AST)Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform (CNAPP)Code Security

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Cycode compared with Snyk: Snyk is often selected for developer-focused scanning and a broad ecosystem. Cycode emphasizes consolidation of multiple AppSec signals and posture management across the SDLC. Organizations that already operate multiple scanners and seek centralization may find Cycode's value proposition aligned with their goals; organizations seeking simpler, developer-centric adoption may prefer Snyk. - Cycode compared with Semgrep: Semgrep provides a strong rule-customization capability and an open-source engine. Cycode targets enterprise posture management and convergence of multiple capabilities. Semgrep's transparent pricing and community ecosystem are practical advantages for some buyers.

Market adoption / analyst signals

A recent industry Magic Quadrant includes Cycode among evaluated vendors in the Application Security Testing category. The vendor also cites placements in Critical Capabilities use cases; buyers with access to analyst research should validate vendor summaries against the original reports.

	Cycode	Snyk	Semgrep
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (sales-led); third-party benchmarks indicate enterprise-level annual contracts	Public pricing pages; team and enterprise tiers listed	Teams plans published (per-contributor pricing for code, supply chain, secrets)
Best For	Organizations seeking consolidated AST, SSCS, and ASPM capabilities with contextualized prioritization and workflow automation	Teams seeking developer-focused AppSec tooling with broad ecosystem integration	Teams seeking a customizable SAST engine with community rule sets and modular paid features
Key Strength	Consolidation and contextual prioritization across SDLC tools; expansion of native SAST via acquisition	Broad market adoption and ecosystem integrations; transparent plan options for some tiers	Strong open-source engine and community contributions; transparent pricing for some teams
Key Weakness	Less transparent pricing; platform adoption overhead; limited sample size on some public review sites	Can become costly at scale; configuration needed for prioritization/noise control	Enterprise features and support are more custom; commercial direction has been debated in community forums

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Cycode compared with Snyk: Snyk is often selected for developer-focused scanning and a broad ecosystem. Cycode emphasizes consolidation of multiple AppSec signals and posture management across the SDLC. Organizations that already operate multiple scanners and seek centralization may find Cycode's value proposition aligned with their goals; organizations seeking simpler, developer-centric adoption may prefer Snyk.
Cycode compared with Semgrep: Semgrep provides a strong rule-customization capability and an open-source engine. Cycode targets enterprise posture management and convergence of multiple capabilities. Semgrep's transparent pricing and community ecosystem are practical advantages for some buyers.

Market adoption / analyst signals

	Cycode	Snyk	Semgrep
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (sales-led); third-party benchmarks indicate enterprise-level annual contracts	Public pricing pages; team and enterprise tiers listed	Teams plans published (per-contributor pricing for code, supply chain, secrets)
Best For	Organizations seeking consolidated AST, SSCS, and ASPM capabilities with contextualized prioritization and workflow automation	Teams seeking developer-focused AppSec tooling with broad ecosystem integration	Teams seeking a customizable SAST engine with community rule sets and modular paid features
Key Strength	Consolidation and contextual prioritization across SDLC tools; expansion of native SAST via acquisition	Broad market adoption and ecosystem integrations; transparent plan options for some tiers	Strong open-source engine and community contributions; transparent pricing for some teams
Key Weakness	Less transparent pricing; platform adoption overhead; limited sample size on some public review sites	Can become costly at scale; configuration needed for prioritization/noise control	Enterprise features and support are more custom; commercial direction has been debated in community forums