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

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Differentiation - Kodem's publicly stated differentiator is correlation of runtime signals (including eBPF-based approaches noted in vendor materials) with code and image data to inform exploitability and prioritization. (official vendor product pages) - Snyk focuses on developer workflows and broad scanner coverage across SCA/SAST/IaC/container with self-serve pricing and integrations. (vendor pricing and product pages) - Contrast focuses on runtime testing and detection/response models requiring instrumentation and runtime usage-based pricing. (vendor pricing and product pages) - Feature comparison: potential strengths and risk areas - Potential Kodem advantages (based on vendor materials): - Runtime validation of reachability and execution to aid triage - Correlation across repositories, images, and runtime environments (vendor materials) - SBOM outputs enriched with runtime evidence (vendor claims) - Potential disadvantages / risk areas: - Limited independent validation in public review sources - Public security/compliance attestations were not found in the reviewed sources - Operational complexity associated with deploying runtime sensors and correlating data across layers - Pricing comparison - Kodem's vendor-published starting prices for runtime-related tiers are positioned at a higher entry point than some developer-first tools; organizations should evaluate whether runtime validation provides sufficient value relative to alternatives. - Market share and adoption trends - No authoritative market share data was found in the accessed sources. Evidence is limited to vendor disclosures (funding, headcount) and press coverage. (vendor disclosures and press coverage) - When customers may choose competitors - Buyers whose primary needs are low-cost, broad scanner coverage and self-serve developer workflows may choose Snyk or similar tools. - Buyers requiring long-standing procurement footprints, mature governance workflows, or very large rule-writing practices may prefer established SAST incumbents. - Buyers aligned to specific runtime/instrumentation models supported by Contrast may prefer that vendor.

	Kodem	Snyk	Contrast Security
Starting Price	Published starting price for enterprise/runtime tiers (vendor-published starting price) — Product pricing and overview pages	Free tier; published team pricing available from the vendor — Pricing and product pages	Quote-based; runtime pricing models vary (vendor-published) — Pricing and product pages
Typical Buyer Profile	Organizations seeking runtime-validated exploitability data and reduction of scanner noise	Developer-focused teams needing broad SCA/SAST/IaC/container coverage with self-serve options	Organizations seeking runtime instrumentation-based testing and application detection/response models
Key Differentiator	Emphasis on correlating code, images, and runtime behavior to prioritize findings (vendor positioning) — Product overview and feature pages	Broad ecosystem and developer-oriented workflows; established in SCA/SAST markets — Product overview and feature pages	Runtime instrumentation and IAST/ADR-style capabilities; pricing tied to runtime constructs — Product overview and feature pages
Key Consideration	Limited independent public review data and enterprise compliance documentation in public sources; operational requirements for runtime sensors should be validated	Lower entry cost and self-serve adoption options; may still require additional processes to reduce noise at scale	Requires runtime agents/instrumentation; pricing and fit depend on supported stacks and runtime footprint

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Differentiation
- Kodem's publicly stated differentiator is correlation of runtime signals (including eBPF-based approaches noted in vendor materials) with code and image data to inform exploitability and prioritization. (official vendor product pages)
- Snyk focuses on developer workflows and broad scanner coverage across SCA/SAST/IaC/container with self-serve pricing and integrations. (vendor pricing and product pages)
- Contrast focuses on runtime testing and detection/response models requiring instrumentation and runtime usage-based pricing. (vendor pricing and product pages)
Feature comparison: potential strengths and risk areas
- Potential Kodem advantages (based on vendor materials):
  - Runtime validation of reachability and execution to aid triage
  - Correlation across repositories, images, and runtime environments (vendor materials)
  - SBOM outputs enriched with runtime evidence (vendor claims)
- Potential disadvantages / risk areas:
  - Limited independent validation in public review sources
  - Public security/compliance attestations were not found in the reviewed sources
  - Operational complexity associated with deploying runtime sensors and correlating data across layers
Pricing comparison
- Kodem's vendor-published starting prices for runtime-related tiers are positioned at a higher entry point than some developer-first tools; organizations should evaluate whether runtime validation provides sufficient value relative to alternatives.
Market share and adoption trends
- No authoritative market share data was found in the accessed sources. Evidence is limited to vendor disclosures (funding, headcount) and press coverage. (vendor disclosures and press coverage)
When customers may choose competitors
- Buyers whose primary needs are low-cost, broad scanner coverage and self-serve developer workflows may choose Snyk or similar tools.
- Buyers requiring long-standing procurement footprints, mature governance workflows, or very large rule-writing practices may prefer established SAST incumbents.
- Buyers aligned to specific runtime/instrumentation models supported by Contrast may prefer that vendor.

	Kodem	Snyk	Contrast Security
Starting Price	Published starting price for enterprise/runtime tiers (vendor-published starting price) — Product pricing and overview pages	Free tier; published team pricing available from the vendor — Pricing and product pages	Quote-based; runtime pricing models vary (vendor-published) — Pricing and product pages
Typical Buyer Profile	Organizations seeking runtime-validated exploitability data and reduction of scanner noise	Developer-focused teams needing broad SCA/SAST/IaC/container coverage with self-serve options	Organizations seeking runtime instrumentation-based testing and application detection/response models
Key Differentiator	Emphasis on correlating code, images, and runtime behavior to prioritize findings (vendor positioning) — Product overview and feature pages	Broad ecosystem and developer-oriented workflows; established in SCA/SAST markets — Product overview and feature pages	Runtime instrumentation and IAST/ADR-style capabilities; pricing tied to runtime constructs — Product overview and feature pages
Key Consideration	Limited independent public review data and enterprise compliance documentation in public sources; operational requirements for runtime sensors should be validated	Lower entry cost and self-serve adoption options; may still require additional processes to reduce noise at scale	Requires runtime agents/instrumentation; pricing and fit depend on supported stacks and runtime footprint