Veracode pricing

Veracode does not publish a public price list. Costs are quote-based and shaped by deployment scope, compliance needs, and engagement model. What is publicly known is that pricing involves per‑seat licenses, per‑scan charges, and subscription tiers that can include enterprise‑only bundles. The final quote depends on application count, scan frequency, required compliance mappings, and support levels, so each engagement typically requires a sales discussion to clarify total cost of ownership.

Quote variations stem from several levers. Per‑seat licenses scale with the number of authorized users and administrators. Per‑scan or per‑API fees vary by scan type (static versus dynamic) and depth of analysis. Compliance requirements such as PCI‑DSS 4.0, SOC 2 Type II, and OWASP API Top 10 (2023) add scope in the form of specialized testing, evidence packaging, and audit‑ready reporting. Additional drivers include integration needs, custom policy creation, and the level of support and service‑level agreements attached to the contract.

Publicly shared industry patterns for similar application security testing platforms include several common components. There is usually a recurring subscription fee that provides access to the dashboard, reporting tools, and baseline compliance mappings. Organizations often pay per application or per API for ongoing scans, with higher volumes typically yielding negotiated discounts. One‑time onboarding or implementation fees may apply for environment setup, policy tuning, and integration with development workflows. While exact figures for any specific vendor are not disclosed here, these elements represent the typical cost structure you can expect when budgeting for external security testing services.

midddleBrick does not fix, patch, block, or remediate findings. It detects and reports with remediation guidance. It does not perform active SQL injection or command injection, as those require intrusive payloads outside its scope. It does not detect business logic vulnerabilities, which require domain context best handled by a human expert. It does not detect blind SSRF, as out‑of‑band infrastructure is not in scope. It does not replace a human pentester for high‑stakes audits. The tool aligns findings to frameworks such as PCI‑DSS 4.0, SOC 2 Type II, and OWASP API Top 10 (2023), but it is a scanner, not an auditor, and cannot certify compliance.

The platform maps findings to PCI‑DSS 4.0, SOC 2 Type II, and OWASP API Top 10 (2023). For other frameworks, it helps you prepare for, aligns with security controls described in, and supports audit evidence for regulations such as HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 27001, NIST, CIS, CCPA, NIS2, DORA, FedRAMP, DPDP, APPI, PDPA, PIPEDA, PIPA, UK DPA, LGPD, SOX, GLBA, and FERPA. Because the scanner does not perform assessment or attestation, it does not certify that an organization meets any regulatory requirement. Instead, it supplies findings that can be used as part of a broader risk and compliance program.