Veracode is an application security platform that helps organizations identify and remediate vulnerabilities across the software development lifecycle. The platform combines static analysis (SAST), dynamic analysis (DAST), software composition analysis (SCA), and manual penetration testing to provide comprehensive security coverage for applications built in-house or acquired through third parties.
Veracode's pricing is based on a combination of factors including the number of applications scanned, scan frequency, the types of security testing required, and the size of development teams. Unlike some security tools that charge per developer seat, Veracode typically structures contracts around application units and testing volume, which can make budgeting complex for teams managing large or growing application portfolios.
Evaluating Veracode or planning a purchase?
Vendr's pricing analysis agent uses anonymized contract data to show what similar companies typically pay and where negotiation leverage exists—whether you're estimating budget, comparing options, or reviewing a quote.
Explore Veracode pricing with Vendr
This guide combines Veracode's published pricing with Vendr's dataset and analysis to break down Veracode pricing in 2026, including:
Whether you're evaluating Veracode for the first time or preparing for renewal, this guide is designed to help you budget accurately and negotiate with clearer market context.
Veracode pricing in 2026 is structured around application units, scan types, and testing frequency rather than simple per-user licensing. Based on Vendr transaction data, most organizations pay between $50,000 and $300,000 annually depending on the number of applications under test, the mix of scanning methodologies (SAST, DAST, SCA, manual testing), and contract term length.
The platform offers several packaging approaches:
Veracode does not publish list pricing publicly, and quotes vary significantly based on application count, scan frequency, and the specific testing modules included. Organizations typically receive custom quotes after a scoping conversation with Veracode's sales team.
Benchmarking context:
Vendr data shows that pricing outcomes vary widely depending on portfolio size and negotiation approach. See what similar companies pay for Veracode to access percentile-based ranges for comparable application counts and testing requirements.
Veracode does not offer traditional "tiers" in the SaaS sense. Instead, the platform is modular, with pricing determined by which security testing capabilities you include and how extensively you use them. Most buyers construct packages around their specific application security needs.
Pricing Structure:
Static Analysis is typically priced per application or per scan, depending on contract structure. Veracode scans source code to identify security vulnerabilities before deployment. Pricing depends on application size (measured in lines of code or complexity), scan frequency, and whether scans are automated within CI/CD pipelines.
Observed Outcomes:
In Vendr's dataset, buyers often achieve below-list pricing through volume commitments and multi-year terms. Organizations scanning 10–50 applications commonly negotiate discounts, particularly when bundling SAST with other testing types.
Benchmarking context:
Get your custom Veracode SAST estimate to see how SAST pricing varies based on application portfolio size and scan frequency for deals similar to yours.
Pricing Structure:
Dynamic Analysis tests running applications to identify vulnerabilities that emerge during execution. DAST is typically priced per application or per scan, with costs influenced by application complexity, scan depth, and frequency. Some contracts include DAST as part of a bundled package, while others price it separately.
Observed Outcomes:
Based on Vendr transaction data, DAST pricing is often negotiable when purchased alongside SAST or SCA. Multi-year commitments and volume-based discounting are common levers.
Benchmarking context:
Compare Veracode DAST pricing with Vendr to understand how your requirements compare to recent market outcomes for similar application counts and testing intensity.
Pricing Structure:
SCA identifies vulnerabilities in open-source and third-party components. Pricing is typically based on the number of applications analyzed and the volume of dependencies scanned. SCA is often bundled with SAST or DAST in enterprise packages.
Observed Outcomes:
Vendr data shows that buyers frequently negotiate SCA as part of a broader application security bundle rather than purchasing it standalone, which can yield better overall pricing.
Benchmarking context:
Explore Veracode SCA pricing with Vendr to see typical SCA costs for your application portfolio when included in multi-module agreements.
Pricing Structure:
Manual penetration testing is typically priced per application per year, with costs varying based on application complexity, testing scope, and the number of tests performed annually. This is often the most expensive component of a Veracode contract due to the human expertise required.
Observed Outcomes:
In Vendr's dataset, manual testing pricing is less flexible than automated scanning, but buyers can negotiate the number of included tests and the scope of each engagement.
Benchmarking context:
Get Veracode penetration testing benchmarks to see typical manual testing costs based on application complexity and testing frequency.
Understanding the factors that influence Veracode pricing helps buyers budget accurately and identify negotiation opportunities. Based on Vendr transaction data, the primary cost drivers include:
Application count and scan frequency:
Most Veracode contracts are structured around a defined number of applications and an expected scan frequency. Organizations that underestimate their application count or scanning needs may face mid-contract adjustments or overage charges.
Testing module mix:
Automated testing (SAST, DAST, SCA) is generally priced lower per application than manual penetration testing. Buyers can optimize costs by clearly defining which applications require which testing types rather than applying all modules uniformly.
Growth and scalability:
Organizations planning to expand their application portfolio should negotiate growth terms upfront, including pricing for additional applications and flexibility to adjust scan volumes without triggering steep overage fees.
Beyond base platform fees, Veracode contracts often include additional costs that can significantly impact total spend. Buyers should account for these when budgeting:
Professional services:
Veracode's platform requires integration with development workflows, CI/CD pipelines, and issue tracking systems. Professional services costs vary based on the number of integrations, the complexity of your development environment, and the level of customization required. Buyers should request detailed services estimates during the sales process and negotiate fixed-price packages where possible.
Overage management:
Scan overages are a common source of unexpected costs. Buyers should negotiate clear overage terms, including per-scan or per-application rates, and build in buffer capacity if application growth is anticipated. Some buyers negotiate "true-up" provisions that allow them to adjust contracted volumes at renewal rather than paying premium overage rates mid-contract.
Support tiers:
Veracode offers multiple support levels. Standard support is typically included, but premium tiers with faster response times, dedicated account management, and proactive guidance add meaningful cost. Buyers should evaluate whether premium support is necessary based on internal security team capacity and application criticality.
Veracode pricing varies widely based on application portfolio size, testing requirements, and contract structure. While Veracode does not publish list pricing, Vendr's dataset provides directional guidance on typical spending patterns.
Small to mid-sized portfolios (5–20 applications):
Organizations scanning a smaller number of applications with a mix of SAST, DAST, and SCA typically pay $50,000–$120,000 annually. Pricing depends on scan frequency, application complexity, and whether manual testing is included.
Mid-sized portfolios (20–50 applications):
Buyers in this range commonly pay $120,000–$250,000 annually. Volume-based discounting becomes more significant at this scale, and multi-year commitments often yield better per-application pricing.
Large portfolios (50+ applications):
Enterprise buyers with extensive application portfolios typically pay $250,000–$500,000+ annually. Custom enterprise agreements are common, with pricing influenced by the mix of automated and manual testing, support requirements, and contract term length.
Benchmarking context:
Based on Vendr transaction data, buyers who negotiate multi-year agreements often achieve below-list pricing, volume commitments for 30+ applications commonly unlock additional per-application discounts, and organizations bundling multiple testing types (SAST + DAST + SCA) frequently secure better overall pricing than those purchasing modules separately.
Explore Veracode pricing benchmarks with Vendr to see percentile-based ranges tailored to your specific application count and testing requirements.
Veracode pricing is highly negotiable, particularly for buyers who engage early, understand their leverage, and apply data-backed strategies. Based on anonymized Veracode deals in Vendr's dataset, the following approaches consistently yield better outcomes.
Veracode sales cycles can be lengthy, particularly for enterprise buyers. Engaging 90–120 days before your target start date or renewal deadline gives you time to evaluate alternatives, refine requirements, and negotiate without time pressure.
Clearly define your application portfolio, scan frequency, and testing requirements before requesting a quote. Ambiguity in scope often leads to overprovisioned contracts or unexpected overage fees. Vendr data shows that buyers who provide detailed scoping information upfront receive more accurate quotes and have stronger negotiating positions.
Veracode does not publish list pricing, which gives sales teams wide latitude in initial quotes. Anchoring early to a realistic budget range—informed by market data—helps frame the negotiation and signals that you've done your homework.
Benchmarking context:
Vendr data shows that buyers who reference market pricing early in the process often receive more competitive initial quotes. See what similar companies pay to establish a credible budget anchor.
Veracode strongly prefers multi-year agreements and will often discount significantly to secure them. However, multi-year terms carry risk if your application portfolio or testing needs change.
Negotiate growth terms upfront, including pricing for additional applications, flexibility to adjust scan volumes, and clear overage rates. Based on Vendr transaction data, some buyers negotiate annual "true-up" provisions that allow them to adjust contracted volumes at each anniversary rather than locking in fixed capacity for multiple years.
Buyers who purchase multiple testing modules (SAST, DAST, SCA) together typically achieve better overall pricing than those who add modules incrementally. If you anticipate needing multiple testing types, negotiate them as a package upfront.
Negotiation guidance:
Vendr transaction data shows that bundled deals often yield better per-application pricing compared to standalone module purchases. Access Veracode negotiation playbooks for supplier-specific strategies on structuring multi-module agreements.
Veracode competes with Snyk, Checkmarx, Fortify, and other application security platforms. Buyers who actively evaluate alternatives and reference them during negotiations often secure better pricing and terms.
Credible competitive evaluation signals that you have options and are willing to switch if Veracode's pricing or terms don't align with your requirements. Even if you prefer Veracode, demonstrating that you've explored alternatives strengthens your negotiating position.
Competitive context:
Compare Veracode to alternatives with Vendr to see how Veracode pricing compares to competitors for similar application portfolios and testing requirements.
Professional services, onboarding, and premium support are often bundled into initial quotes at high rates. Negotiate these separately from platform licensing, and request itemized pricing for each service component.
Some buyers negotiate fixed-price onboarding packages or reduce premium support costs by committing to standard support initially with the option to upgrade later if needed.
Veracode's fiscal year ends in January. Sales teams face significant pressure to close deals in Q4 (October–December), which can create negotiation leverage for buyers with flexibility in timing.
Buyers who engage in Q4 and are willing to sign before year-end often secure better pricing and more favorable terms. However, this strategy requires starting the evaluation process early enough to complete due diligence and contract review before the deadline.
These insights are based on anonymized Veracode deals in Vendr's dataset across a wide range of company sizes and contract structures. Buyers can explore these insights directly using Vendr's free pricing and negotiation tools:
Veracode competes primarily with Snyk, Checkmarx, and Fortify in the application security market. Each platform offers different strengths, pricing models, and contract structures. The following comparisons focus on pricing rather than features.
| Pricing component | Veracode | Snyk |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Application-based or scan-based; custom quotes | Developer seat-based; published tiers with custom enterprise pricing |
| Typical contract minimum | $50,000–$75,000+ annually | $25,000–$50,000+ annually for Team/Business tiers |
| Professional services | $10,000–$50,000+ for onboarding and integration | $5,000–$25,000+ depending on complexity |
| Estimated total (50 applications, SAST + SCA) | $150,000–$250,000 annually | $100,000–$180,000 annually (developer seat model) |
Benchmarking context:
Compare Veracode and Snyk pricing with Vendr to model both platforms side-by-side based on your specific requirements.
| Pricing component | Veracode | Checkmarx |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Application-based or scan-based; custom quotes | Lines of code or application-based; custom quotes |
| Typical contract minimum | $50,000–$75,000+ annually | $60,000–$100,000+ annually |
| Professional services | $10,000–$50,000+ for onboarding and integration | $15,000–$60,000+ depending on complexity |
| Estimated total (50 applications, SAST + DAST + SCA) | $150,000–$250,000 annually | $180,000–$300,000 annually |
Benchmarking context:
Vendr data shows that Veracode and Checkmarx pricing can converge significantly after negotiation, particularly for enterprise buyers. Get Veracode vs. Checkmarx pricing comparison to see how recent deals compare for your specific requirements.
| Pricing component | Veracode | Fortify |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Application-based or scan-based; SaaS delivery | Application-based; on-premises or SaaS options |
| Typical contract minimum | $50,000–$75,000+ annually | $75,000–$125,000+ annually (including infrastructure for on-prem) |
| Professional services | $10,000–$50,000+ for onboarding and integration | $20,000–$75,000+ for on-premises deployment and integration |
| Estimated total (50 applications, SAST + DAST) | $150,000–$250,000 annually | $200,000–$350,000 annually (on-prem); $150,000–$275,000 (SaaS) |
Benchmarking context:
Based on anonymized transactions in Vendr's platform, Veracode's SaaS model typically delivers lower total cost of ownership than Fortify's on-premises option for most buyers. Explore Veracode vs. Fortify pricing to understand how your requirements map to each vendor's pricing model.
Based on Veracode transactions in Vendr's database over the past 12 months:
Vendr's dataset shows teams with 30+ applications often achieved lower per-application pricing through volume-based negotiation and multi-year commitments.
Negotiation guidance:
Access Veracode negotiation playbooks for supplier-specific strategies on maximizing discounts based on your application portfolio size, testing requirements, and timing.
Based on anonymized Veracode transactions in Vendr's platform:
Vendr data shows that buyers who negotiate effectively often achieve total costs below initial quotes through volume commitments, multi-year terms, and competitive leverage.
Benchmarking context:
Get a custom Veracode budget estimate based on your specific application count, testing requirements, and contract term.
Based on Veracode deals in Vendr's database:
Vendr's dataset shows that buyers who negotiate clear overage terms and fixed annual pricing upfront avoid unexpected mid-contract costs.
Negotiation guidance:
Analyze your Veracode quote with Vendr to identify hidden cost provisions and get strategies for negotiating more favorable terms.
Based on anonymized transactions in Vendr's platform for comparable application portfolios:
Vendr data shows that buyers who actively evaluate alternatives and reference competitive pricing during negotiations achieve better outcomes than those who negotiate with a single vendor.
Competitive benchmarks:
Compare Veracode to alternatives based on your specific requirements to see how pricing stacks up across vendors for similar application portfolios and testing needs.
Based on Veracode's fiscal calendar and transaction patterns in Vendr's dataset:
Vendr data shows that buyers who engage in Q4 with credible alternatives often achieve better pricing than those negotiating in other quarters.
Negotiation guidance:
Get Veracode timing and leverage analysis for supplier-specific guidance on when to engage and how to maximize leverage based on your renewal timeline and Veracode's fiscal calendar.
Most buyers use a combination of all three to achieve comprehensive application security coverage.
Veracode contracts are modular. There is no single "standard" package; buyers select the testing types that match their requirements. Common combinations include:
Buyers should define their testing requirements clearly before requesting a quote to avoid overprovisioning or underprovisioning.
Veracode offers limited proof-of-concept (POC) engagements for qualified buyers, typically including a small number of application scans to demonstrate platform capabilities. Free trials are not generally available for self-service use; POCs are coordinated through Veracode's sales team.
Yes, but adding applications or scans beyond contracted limits typically triggers overage fees at higher rates than base pricing. Buyers should negotiate clear overage terms upfront, including per-application and per-scan rates, and build in buffer capacity if growth is anticipated. Some buyers negotiate annual "true-up" provisions that allow them to adjust contracted volumes at renewal rather than paying premium overage rates mid-contract.
Based on analysis of anonymized Veracode deals in Vendr's dataset, pricing outcomes vary significantly depending on application portfolio size, testing requirements, and negotiation approach.
Key takeaways:
Regardless of platform choice, the most important step is clearly defining requirements, understanding total cost drivers, and benchmarking pricing against comparable deals before committing.
Explore Veracode pricing and negotiation tools with Vendr to access percentile-based benchmarks, competitive comparisons, and observed negotiation patterns for deals similar to yours.
This guide is updated regularly to reflect recent Veracode pricing and negotiation trends. Consider revisiting it ahead of any new purchase or renewal to account for changing market conditions. Last updated: February 2026.