GitHub Advanced Security (GHAS) is a genuinely capable security platform. Code scanning via CodeQL, secret scanning, dependency review, security advisories — if you are already on GitHub Enterprise and have a security engineering team that knows how to configure CodeQL queries, GHAS is a solid choice. But at $49 per committer per month on top of your existing GitHub Enterprise cost, a 15-engineer team is looking at roughly $8,800 per year before any customization work. For a seed-stage company, that is a material line item.
More importantly, GHAS is built around CodeQL, which is powerful but not easy to tune. Out of the box, the false-positive rate on a typical TypeScript or Python codebase is high. Getting it to a level where developers actually engage with findings requires writing or modifying CodeQL queries — a specialized skill set most early-stage engineering teams do not have on staff.
This is an honest breakdown of the alternatives: what they are good at, where they fall short, and which profiles of teams they fit best.
Semgrep (Open Source + Commercial)
Semgrep is the alternative most frequently compared to GHAS for developer-facing SAST. The open-source version is free and runs as a CLI tool or GitHub Action with no per-seat licensing. The commercial cloud offering (Semgrep AppSec Platform) adds PR comments, dashboard, and managed rules at roughly $25 to $40 per developer per month depending on tier.
What it does well: Semgrep's rule language is readable YAML that most engineers can write and modify without a specialist. The Semgrep Registry contains thousands of community and official rules covering OWASP Top 10 patterns across Python, TypeScript, Go, Java, Ruby, and Rust. False-positive rates on the official rulesets are meaningfully lower than CodeQL's defaults because the rules are narrower and more targeted.
Where it falls short: Semgrep's pattern matching is syntactic — it does not do full taint analysis the way CodeQL does. For complex multi-step injection paths (user input passing through three layers of application code before reaching a sink), Semgrep may miss what CodeQL would catch. Semgrep Pro adds dataflow analysis, but the coverage gap versus CodeQL remains for sophisticated query patterns.
Best fit: teams that want good PR-integrated SAST without the CodeQL learning curve, particularly Python, TypeScript, and Go shops. Open-source tier is an excellent starting point for teams under 10 engineers.
Snyk Code (Developer-First SAST)
Snyk is better known for dependency scanning (SCA), but Snyk Code is their SAST product and it is worth evaluating separately from the rest of the Snyk platform. Snyk Code uses DeepCode's AI-based analysis engine, which they acquired in 2020, and it has real-world false-positive rates that are competitive with Semgrep Pro.
Pricing: Snyk's free tier includes limited Snyk Code scans. The Team tier is approximately $25 per developer per month and covers SAST plus SCA in the same tool.
What it does well: if you are already using Snyk for dependency scanning, consolidating SAST into the same platform eliminates one integration and one dashboard. The PR integration is well-designed; findings appear as inline comments in GitHub and GitLab with reasonably clear explanations. The AI-assisted fix suggestions are useful in straightforward cases.
Where it falls short: Snyk Code's coverage depth varies by language. Python and JavaScript coverage is solid. Go and Rust coverage is narrower. The fix suggestions can be misleading on complex finding types — the explanation is clear but the suggested fix is sometimes incorrect or incomplete, which requires developer verification that adds friction.
Best fit: teams already on Snyk for dependency scanning who want to consolidate their security tooling stack. Also good for Node.js / Python shops that prioritize integration breadth over analysis depth.
SonarQube / SonarCloud
SonarQube is one of the most widely deployed SAST tools in enterprise environments. SonarCloud is the hosted version. Pricing for SonarCloud starts at roughly $10 per month per 100K lines of code, which makes it cost-competitive for smaller codebases but more expensive than per-seat options for teams with large repositories.
What it does well: SonarQube covers both security and code quality in one pass — it finds security vulnerabilities alongside maintainability issues, code smells, and test coverage gaps. For teams that want a single quality gate for all engineering concerns (not just security), this integrated view is valuable. The default rules are well-tested across millions of codebases, which means the out-of-the-box false-positive rate is relatively low on common patterns.
Where it falls short: SonarQube's security finding explanations are less developer-friendly than Semgrep or Snyk. The findings often require follow-up documentation reading to understand the root cause and prevention. The tool is also more complex to configure and maintain than the alternatives in this comparison — particularly for custom rule development.
Best fit: teams that want integrated code quality and security in one tool, particularly Java shops where SonarQube has the deepest coverage. Also common at teams that need a single security reporting artifact for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence.
Open-Source Stack (No Per-Seat Cost)
A capable SAST baseline can be assembled entirely from open-source tools with no licensing cost. The combination that covers the most ground for web application teams:
- Semgrep OSS: SAST for Python, TypeScript, Go, Java. Free, runs in GitHub Actions in under 5 minutes of configuration. Use the
p/security-auditand language-specific OWASP packs from the registry. - Trivy or grype: container image and dependency scanning against NVD and GitHub Advisory Database. Both are free and actively maintained.
- Trufflehog OSS: secrets detection in git history and current code. Runs as a pre-commit hook and a CI check.
- OWASP ZAP: DAST for the staging environment. The Baseline Scan mode runs a safe passive scan in under 15 minutes against any deployed application.
Total licensing cost: $0. Total setup time: approximately one engineering day to configure and integrate all four. The tradeoff versus commercial options is that you own the maintenance, false-positive triage, and rule updates — which costs roughly half a sprint per quarter for a team with no dedicated security engineer.
The Honest Comparison
| Tool | Approx. Cost (15 devs) | False-Positive Rate | Setup Effort | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHAS (CodeQL) | ~$8,800/yr (+Enterprise) | High without tuning | High | Orgs with dedicated appsec |
| Semgrep Pro | ~$4,500/yr | Low-medium | Low | Python / TS / Go shops |
| Snyk Code + Open | ~$4,500/yr | Low-medium | Low | Teams already on Snyk SCA |
| SonarCloud | ~$1,200/yr (by LOC) | Low | Medium | Java / code quality + security |
| Open-source stack | $0 | Medium | Medium | Teams with time, no budget |
What Actually Matters in the Decision
The selection criteria most teams use — feature lists, compliance certifications, enterprise integrations — are secondary to two things that most vendor comparisons do not measure: developer engagement rate and time-to-value.
Developer engagement rate is the percentage of security findings that actually get read and acted on. A tool with 50% fewer features but 70% engagement is more valuable than a fully-featured tool with 20% engagement. The engagement rate is primarily determined by false-positive ratio and integration smoothness — both of which favor the simpler tools on this list over GHAS for small teams.
Time-to-value is how long it takes from "we decided to add SAST" to "our developers are regularly seeing and fixing real security findings in their PR workflow." For GHAS with CodeQL customization, that timeline is typically 4 to 8 weeks. For Semgrep OSS with the security-audit ruleset, it is one afternoon.
For seed-stage teams: start with Semgrep OSS. Upgrade to a commercial tier when you hire your first dedicated security engineer and start needing the dashboard, reporting, and advanced analysis features that the paid tiers offer. That decision point typically arrives around Series A when enterprise customers start asking about your security posture in procurement questionnaires.
