Kodem

Name: Kodem
Brand: Kodem

AI Native

Intelligent Application Security for Enterprises

Est 2021|Raised $37M

LinkedIn 10K|Website|Web traffic 4K|FTEs 50|HQ Tel Aviv, Tel-Aviv District, IL

MarketsApplication Security Testing (AST)Code Security SCA

Published Oct 2, 2026

01Common complaints

Company sizes or stages where the product may be over-provisioned
- Early-stage startups primarily needing basic SCA and automated dependency updates may find the vendor-published starting prices and operational scope excessive. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/pricing
Industries or use cases where competitors may be preferred
- Programs that prioritize legacy SAST reporting and long-established compliance artifacts may favor incumbent SAST vendors for governance continuity.
Technical constraints
- Environments incompatible with eBPF-based runtime sensors or where production runtime telemetry cannot be deployed will limit the product's value proposition (vendor materials reference eBPF-based collection). https://www.kodemsecurity.com/resources/runtime-intelligence-meet-ai
Budget constraints
- Organizations with budgets below the vendor-published entry points may prefer developer-focused tools with free tiers or lower starting prices. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/pricing https://snyk.io/plans/
Other red flags in procurement
- If the vendor cannot provide compliance evidence (SOC 2, ISO) under NDA when required, this may be a procurement blocker.
- If proof-of-value metrics reported by the vendor cannot be reproduced with agreed definitions during a trial, proceed with caution.
Limitations acknowledged by the vendor or inferred from product approach
- The value proposition relies on runtime signal collection and correlation; if runtime visibility is limited, the expected benefits will be reduced.
Roadmap items and recent updates (vendor-published)
- May 2025 product notes referenced a public API, enhanced CLI for local scanning, and expanded integrations (e.g., Azure Repos). Detailed timelines and future roadmap items were not publicly specified. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/resources/may-2025-edition-of-kodem-kernels
Scale limitations and operational considerations
- No public documentation was found specifying scale limits. Buyers should test scale characteristics (number of services, telemetry volume, correlation latency) during proof-of-value engagements.
Security or compliance gaps
- No public SOC 2/ISO attestations were located in the reviewed sources; this can present procurement friction for some enterprise buyers.
API and integration constraints
- A public API was referenced as launched in May 2025; detailed API rate limits and coverage were not publicly documented and should be validated.

- Company sizes or stages where the product may be over-provisioned - Early-stage startups primarily needing basic SCA and automated dependency updates may find the vendor-published starting prices and operational scope excessive. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/pricing - Industries or use cases where competitors may be preferred - Programs that prioritize legacy SAST reporting and long-established compliance artifacts may favor incumbent SAST vendors for governance continuity. - Technical constraints - Environments incompatible with eBPF-based runtime sensors or where production runtime telemetry cannot be deployed will limit the product's value proposition (vendor materials reference eBPF-based collection). https://www.kodemsecurity.com/resources/runtime-intelligence-meet-ai - Budget constraints - Organizations with budgets below the vendor-published entry points may prefer developer-focused tools with free tiers or lower starting prices. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/pricing https://snyk.io/plans/ - Other red flags in procurement - If the vendor cannot provide compliance evidence (SOC 2, ISO) under NDA when required, this may be a procurement blocker. - If proof-of-value metrics reported by the vendor cannot be reproduced with agreed definitions during a trial, proceed with caution. - Limitations acknowledged by the vendor or inferred from product approach - The value proposition relies on runtime signal collection and correlation; if runtime visibility is limited, the expected benefits will be reduced. - Roadmap items and recent updates (vendor-published) - May 2025 product notes referenced a public API, enhanced CLI for local scanning, and expanded integrations (e.g., Azure Repos). Detailed timelines and future roadmap items were not publicly specified. https://www.kodemsecurity.com/resources/may-2025-edition-of-kodem-kernels - Scale limitations and operational considerations - No public documentation was found specifying scale limits. Buyers should test scale characteristics (number of services, telemetry volume, correlation latency) during proof-of-value engagements. - Security or compliance gaps - No public SOC 2/ISO attestations were located in the reviewed sources; this can present procurement friction for some enterprise buyers. - API and integration constraints - A public API was referenced as launched in May 2025; detailed API rate limits and coverage were not publicly documented and should be validated.

02Why they buy

Differentiators supported by vendor materials and limited independent evidence
- The primary differentiator described in vendor materials is correlation of runtime execution data with code and image metadata to inform exploitability and prioritization. Independent end-user validation in public sources is limited, so these differentiators should be validated during evaluation.
Unique features described by the vendor
- Function-level execution tracing and runtime call graph analysis to assess exploitability (vendor-published).
- A correlation engine that maps repositories to images and runtime behavior (Kodem C.O.R.E., vendor-published). https://www.kodemsecurity.com/technology/kodem-core
Areas where competitors have clearer advantages
- Review volume and third-party validation: some incumbents (for example, Snyk) have substantially larger public review footprints.
- Pricing accessibility for small teams: developer-first tools often provide free tiers and lower entry prices.

- Differentiators supported by vendor materials and limited independent evidence - The primary differentiator described in vendor materials is correlation of runtime execution data with code and image metadata to inform exploitability and prioritization. Independent end-user validation in public sources is limited, so these differentiators should be validated during evaluation. - Unique features described by the vendor - Function-level execution tracing and runtime call graph analysis to assess exploitability (vendor-published). - A correlation engine that maps repositories to images and runtime behavior (Kodem C.O.R.E., vendor-published). https://www.kodemsecurity.com/technology/kodem-core - Areas where competitors have clearer advantages - Review volume and third-party validation: some incumbents (for example, Snyk) have substantially larger public review footprints. - Pricing accessibility for small teams: developer-first tools often provide free tiers and lower entry prices.

03Field reports

Availability of third-party reviews

Third-party review coverage for Kodem appears limited in accessible review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights) as of June 2026. This limits independent validation of day-to-day UX, support quality, false positive rates in production, rollout complexity, and pricing/value satisfaction.
- G2 has a Kodem product profile and an "alternatives" page, but accessible pages did not show a meaningful volume of end-user reviews for Kodem. (G2 product and alternatives pages)
- Gartner Peer Insights and TrustRadius did not yield substantial public review content for Kodem in this research.

- Third-party review coverage for Kodem appears limited in accessible review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights) as of June 2026. This limits independent validation of day-to-day UX, support quality, false positive rates in production, rollout complexity, and pricing/value satisfaction. - G2 has a Kodem product profile and an "alternatives" page, but accessible pages did not show a meaningful volume of end-user reviews for Kodem. (G2 product and alternatives pages) - Gartner Peer Insights and TrustRadius did not yield substantial public review content for Kodem in this research.

Vendor-published testimonials (treated as vendor-controlled evidence)

The vendor website includes testimonials attributed to named companies. These are vendor-published quotes and are presented here as such:
- Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Apollo.io: "Kai saved our engineers time, 10x'd our team, and gave us visibility we never had." (Vendor product website)
- Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Rocket Lawyer: "We uncovered every attack scenario our past SAST and SCA tools missed and eliminated a seven‑figure risk before it hit production." (Vendor product website)
- Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Riskified: "No other tool showed us how low-severity vulns could be chained into a breach. Kodem did." (Vendor product website)
- Vendor-published testimonial from Nir Rothenberg, CISO (Rapyd): "Wiz made infra security feel easy. Kodem is doing the same for AppSec. It tells us what attackers can actually reach." (Vendor product website)

- The vendor website includes testimonials attributed to named companies. These are vendor-published quotes and are presented here as such: - Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Apollo.io: "Kai saved our engineers time, 10x'd our team, and gave us visibility we never had." (Vendor product website) - Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Rocket Lawyer: "We uncovered every attack scenario our past SAST and SCA tools missed and eliminated a seven‑figure risk before it hit production." (Vendor product website) - Vendor-published testimonial attributed to Riskified: "No other tool showed us how low-severity vulns could be chained into a breach. Kodem did." (Vendor product website) - Vendor-published testimonial from Nir Rothenberg, CISO (Rapyd): "Wiz made infra security feel easy. Kodem is doing the same for AppSec. It tells us what attackers can actually reach." (Vendor product website)

Case-study quotes (vendor-controlled)

In a vendor-published Rapyd case study, a quoted comment: "Most security tools are gym memberships. Kodem is the personal trainer actually helping us get fit." — Nir Rothenberg, CISO, Rapyd. This is a vendor-controlled narrative. (Vendor case study page)

Community/social sentiment

Public community threads specifically discussing Kodem were not prominent in the accessible Reddit/Hacker News results during this research. Most public discussion was at the category level (runtime vs static, fragmentation of AppSec tooling, AI in AppSec).

Balanced view: what can and cannot be concluded from review evidence

External indicators:
- Vendor marketing lists recognizable reference customers; these appear in vendor materials.
- Industry press coverage indicates early traction in regulated verticals. (Press and industry coverage)
Evidence gaps:
- Lack of robust, independently collected end-user reviews limits the ability to validate operational characteristics such as UX, support responsiveness, false positive rates, rollout complexity, and long-term value.

- External indicators: - Vendor marketing lists recognizable reference customers; these appear in vendor materials. - Industry press coverage indicates early traction in regulated verticals. (Press and industry coverage) - Evidence gaps: - Lack of robust, independently collected end-user reviews limits the ability to validate operational characteristics such as UX, support responsiveness, false positive rates, rollout complexity, and long-term value.

Rapyd (fintech) — vendor case study

Context
- The case study describes a pre-Kodem stack including multiple security tools and custom PR gating. Vendor case study page for full details.
Reported outcomes (vendor-published)
- The case study reports metrics such as a material reduction in PR rework, a large majority of scanner-detected CVEs assessed as not exploitable, and substantial time savings for the AppSec team in triage. These metrics are presented by the vendor in the case study.
Critical evaluation
- The metrics are vendor-published and the methodology is not independently audited. Definitions (for example, what constitutes "proven not exploitable"), observation windows, and scope were not fully documented in the public case study.

- Context - The case study describes a pre-Kodem stack including multiple security tools and custom PR gating. Vendor case study page for full details. - Reported outcomes (vendor-published) - The case study reports metrics such as a material reduction in PR rework, a large majority of scanner-detected CVEs assessed as not exploitable, and substantial time savings for the AppSec team in triage. These metrics are presented by the vendor in the case study. - Critical evaluation - The metrics are vendor-published and the methodology is not independently audited. Definitions (for example, what constitutes "proven not exploitable"), observation windows, and scope were not fully documented in the public case study.

AllCloud partner document

An AllCloud PDF describes a systems implementation (Salesforce) related to Kodem as a partner engagement; it does not independently validate platform security efficacy. Partner implementation PDF.

04Best fit

Ideal Customer Profile

Company sizes: employee counts and revenue ranges (heuristic)
- Typical fit appears to be mid-market to enterprise engineering organizations with a meaningful production footprint. Heuristically, organizations in the hundreds to several thousand employees range with substantial revenue may be appropriate, particularly where AppSec staffing is constrained relative to development velocity.
Industries and verticals where adoption is suggested (vendor references)
- Vendor materials and case studies indicate early adoption in fintech/payments (Rapyd), legal tech (Rocket Lawyer), and e-commerce/risk (Riskified). Industry press has also referenced early traction in financial services and insurance. (See vendor case studies, product overview and feature pages, and industry press coverage.)
Roles and personas: decision makers and end users
- Decision makers: CISO, VP Security, Head of Product Security, AppSec leadership
- End users: AppSec engineers, security engineering, platform engineering/SRE (runtime sensors), developers (PR/IDE workflows, remediation)
Pain points addressed
- High volumes of scanner output with limited exploitability context
- Prioritization challenges when using severity scores alone
- Difficulty mapping runtime exposure back to code ownership
- Triage overhead and slow remediation workflows
Qualification criteria: indicators of a good fit
- Organizations with production/runtime visibility requirements
- Sizable codebase and multiple services/repos where false positives are a material operational cost
- Ability to deploy runtime sensors (e.g., Linux environments where eBPF-based approaches are viable)
- Willingness to invest in rollout, ownership mapping, and workflow change management (PR gating, policy tuning)
Deal disqualifiers: indicators of poor fit
- Organizations that only require basic dependency scanning and prefer a lightweight SCA tool
- Environments where runtime components cannot be deployed due to policy or platform constraints
- Organizations that require publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications before engagement (not found in public sources during this research)

- Company sizes: employee counts and revenue ranges (heuristic) - Typical fit appears to be mid-market to enterprise engineering organizations with a meaningful production footprint. Heuristically, organizations in the hundreds to several thousand employees range with substantial revenue may be appropriate, particularly where AppSec staffing is constrained relative to development velocity. - Industries and verticals where adoption is suggested (vendor references) - Vendor materials and case studies indicate early adoption in fintech/payments (Rapyd), legal tech (Rocket Lawyer), and e-commerce/risk (Riskified). Industry press has also referenced early traction in financial services and insurance. (See vendor case studies, product overview and feature pages, and industry press coverage.) - Roles and personas: decision makers and end users - Decision makers: CISO, VP Security, Head of Product Security, AppSec leadership - End users: AppSec engineers, security engineering, platform engineering/SRE (runtime sensors), developers (PR/IDE workflows, remediation) - Pain points addressed - High volumes of scanner output with limited exploitability context - Prioritization challenges when using severity scores alone - Difficulty mapping runtime exposure back to code ownership - Triage overhead and slow remediation workflows - Qualification criteria: indicators of a good fit - Organizations with production/runtime visibility requirements - Sizable codebase and multiple services/repos where false positives are a material operational cost - Ability to deploy runtime sensors (e.g., Linux environments where eBPF-based approaches are viable) - Willingness to invest in rollout, ownership mapping, and workflow change management (PR gating, policy tuning) - Deal disqualifiers: indicators of poor fit - Organizations that only require basic dependency scanning and prefer a lightweight SCA tool - Environments where runtime components cannot be deployed due to policy or platform constraints - Organizations that require publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications before engagement (not found in public sources during this research)

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Kodem describes itself as an "AI-native" enterprise application security platform that correlates code, dependency, container, and runtime signals to reduce false positives and prioritize issues that are exploitable in a given environment. The vendor emphasizes collection and correlation of runtime evidence (for example, which packages/functions execute and whether they are attacker-reachable) rather than manifest-only or source-only results. Vendor materials refer to this approach as "runtime intelligence." (Official vendor product overview and feature pages.)
Key capabilities described by the vendor include:
- SCA with runtime reachability (dependency / supply-chain security combined with runtime reachability analysis). (Vendor product pages.)
- Code security with runtime and exploit validation and automated remediation assistance. (Vendor solution pages.)
- An engine (Kodem C.O.R.E.) that collects data from repositories, container registries, and runtime environments and correlates findings via reachability and runtime confirmation. (Vendor technology pages.)
- An automated agent ("Kai") for triage and remediation automation; vendor materials indicate the agent can generate candidate fixes/PRs (vendor-published claim). (Vendor product pages.)

- Kodem describes itself as an "AI-native" enterprise application security platform that correlates code, dependency, container, and runtime signals to reduce false positives and prioritize issues that are exploitable in a given environment. The vendor emphasizes collection and correlation of runtime evidence (for example, which packages/functions execute and whether they are attacker-reachable) rather than manifest-only or source-only results. Vendor materials refer to this approach as "runtime intelligence." (Official vendor product overview and feature pages.) - Key capabilities described by the vendor include: - SCA with runtime reachability (dependency / supply-chain security combined with runtime reachability analysis). (Vendor product pages.) - Code security with runtime and exploit validation and automated remediation assistance. (Vendor solution pages.) - An engine (Kodem C.O.R.E.) that collects data from repositories, container registries, and runtime environments and correlates findings via reachability and runtime confirmation. (Vendor technology pages.) - An automated agent ("Kai") for triage and remediation automation; vendor materials indicate the agent can generate candidate fixes/PRs (vendor-published claim). (Vendor product pages.)

Target market and market positioning

Primary positioning is enterprise application security (AppSec) and product security teams seeking exploitability validation and reduction of noise from static scanners.
Kodem positions its product as an alternative or consolidation candidate for existing SAST/SCA tooling by adding runtime validation to prioritization workflows. (Vendor product positioning pages.)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Kodem including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →