Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitHub Code Scanning vs Polaris Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

GitHub Code Scanning
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (15th)
Polaris Platform
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
3.2
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (16th), Static Code Analysis (19th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. GitHub Code Scanning is designed for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and holds a mindshare of 1.6%, up 0.7% compared to last year.
Polaris Platform, on the other hand, focuses on Software Composition Analysis (SCA), holds 1.8% mindshare, down 1.9% since last year.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
GitHub Code Scanning1.6%
SonarQube18.8%
Checkmarx One10.4%
Other69.19999999999999%
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polaris Platform1.8%
Black Duck SCA12.5%
Snyk10.8%
Other74.9%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Software Development Manager at Amazon
Code scanning identifies vulnerabilities quickly and improves team response with minimal setup
I have been using Git for approximately 13-14 years. I have used GitHub Code Scanning for about three to four years. The primary purpose is to identify any vulnerability in the code itself. The system logs vulnerabilities that we can immediately examine to see all the error-prone areas. The AI functionalities include predefined agents that scan through and immediately provide responses regarding the best nomenclature or code coverage percentage. It's actually a one-time setup, and the team benefits as long as they push code and changes in the repository itself. Every time we push something, we immediately check the total deviation, whether our code coverage has improved, or if any vulnerability has been identified. There is always a metrics dashboard that we can see and identify. Primarily, GitHub is used for doing the versioning itself in the repository. With vulnerability functionality being provided and AI agents available, it makes a complete package. As soon as we publish our code, we immediately get to know the test code coverage. This immediately informs us about all the vulnerable areas which are not being fully tested. If we address those areas, most vulnerabilities are resolved. Even after tests are added, if by any chance the test is not treated cleanly or corner cases are missed, GitHub Code Scanning immediately flags those corners. It's always beneficial to have because it's not humanly possible to check all corner case scenarios, but as a system where they diagnose each line item, that's very helpful.
Alina-Eugenia Negulescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Procurement and Vendor Manger at twoday
Company consistently identifies security vulnerabilities with current solution but considers moving to a more developer-oriented tool due to complexity and costs
I wouldn't recommend it for small and medium customers, both in terms of the complexity and organizational processes and operational processes around it. I wouldn't go with Black Duck. It's not straightforward as it is with more developer-oriented and plug-and-play versions, so it requires a bit of knowledge and documentation to set it up. On the support part, in the past, we had some issues regarding the availability of the information on the knowledge portal. That was particularly due to the fact that when they integrated their knowledge hub or knowledge portal different kind of documentation, they have not adapted the text. There were circular references on the documentation that was misleading and confusing our people rather than helping them.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The static code analysis capability in GitHub Code Scanning is a very powerful feature, providing the ability to identify vulnerabilities and ensure code quality."
"We use GitHub Code Scanning mostly for source code management."
"GitHub Code Spaces brings significant value with its simplicity and ease of use."
"GitHub Code Scanning has positively impacted my organization as it helps us recognize errors and avoid many later issues which may arise."
"It's very scalable, very easy to handle, and very intuitive."
"The solution helps identify vulnerabilities by understanding how ports communicate with applications running on a system. Ports are like house numbers; to visit someone's house, you must know their number. Similarly, ports are used to communicate with applications. For example, if you want to use an HTTP web server, you must use port 80. It is the port on which the web application or your server listens for incoming requests."
"We have detected security vulnerabilities, which is absolutely one big benefit."
"We have detected security vulnerabilities, which is absolutely one big benefit."
 

Cons

"GitHub Code Scanning should add more templates."
"One area for improvement could be the ability to have an AI system digest the reports generated from code scanning and provide a summary. Currently, the reports can be extensive, and users may overlook details, such as outdated libraries, which could be highlighted for attention."
"When running code scans, GitHub Code Scanning provides recommendations for probable fixes. However, integrating a feature where developers receive real-time highlights of vulnerabilities when checking in or merging a PR would be beneficial."
"At times it becomes very annoying as it highlights certain things which are intuitive. They require code coverage for those aspects as an extra overhead."
"I wouldn't recommend it for small and medium customers, both in terms of the complexity and organizational processes and operational processes around it."
"I wouldn't recommend it for small and medium customers, both in terms of the complexity and organizational processes and operational processes around it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The minimum pricing for the tool is five dollars a month."
"GitHub Code Scanning is a moderately priced solution."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Transportation Company
5%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Code Scanning?
The organization pays for the license of GitHub Code Scanning, but specific price details are unknown.
What needs improvement with GitHub Code Scanning?
In my opinion, areas of GitHub Code Scanning that could be improved include that a few things are not visible to us, such as where it stores data and which path. There is a separate team for that w...
What advice do you have for others considering GitHub Code Scanning?
I am an end user only here with GitHub Code Scanning. I currently might be using the latest version of GitHub Code Scanning, but I don't remember the specific version. I have not utilized the real-...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.