AISafe Labs and Claude Security both use AI to find security bugs in your code, but they're built for different jobs:
Claude Security is Anthropic's set of code security tools: the /security-review command in Claude Code, which is what we tested, a Claude Security plugin that scans a codebase or a set of changes and writes patches, and a hosted service in Enterprise beta that rescans connected repositories.
AISafe Labs is a state-of-the-art, autonomous and continuous application security platform, powered by code audits and penetration tests that follow a unique methodology built on hackers' expertise, at scale and machine speed.
In this post, we'll cover these differences in more detail, show what each tool found when we ran both against the same open-source application, and answer frequently asked questions about both tools.
This comparison was published on November 6, 2026 and reflects the tools as we tested them then. Pricing and features change often, so check each vendor’s current pages for the latest.
How is AISafe Labs different from Claude Security?
1. It audits the whole application, not just a diff
Claude Code's /security-review command reviews the changes on a branch. On a large codebase it most likely read only part of the code, and it found about 85% fewer validated vulnerabilities than AISafe Labs.
An AISafe Labs Code Audit covers the entire codebase, including the classes Claude did not report: token leaks, request forgery, session handling, rate limits and race conditions. We did not test the Claude Security plugin or the hosted service, which scan more of the code than the command does.
2. It also pentests your live application
Claude Security reviews source code only.
AISafe Labs also runs penetration tests against your running application, its infrastructure and its network. Every pentest finding is confirmed with a working proof of concept against the live target, so pentest results contain no false positives.
Ready to secure your app?
Comparing AISafe Labs and Claude Security
Verdict
Pick AISafe Labs if you:
- want to test your application from a real attacker's perspective
- expect a meticulous audit of your entire codebase, with no false positives to triage
- value a solution that not only reports issues but helps you remediate them and validate the fixes
- want security that runs continuously, reviewing every change across your CI/CD pipeline and developer workflow
Pick Claude Security if you:
- already pay for Claude and want security review inside that subscription
- want a quick scan rather than a thorough, detailed assessment
- like to chat interactively with the tool about its findings
- prefer to guide the assessment yourself
How we tested
We ran AISafe Labs and Claude against the same commit of an open-source application, then checked every finding against the source code. Every tool in the benchmark, including AISafe Labs, was scored with the same rules.
- Target: a production open-source web application written in TypeScript, about 310,000 lines in 2,368 TypeScript and JavaScript files. Both tools scanned the same unmodified commit.
- AISafe Labs: Code Audit with default settings, run on 4 November 2026.
- Claude: the
/security-reviewcommand in Claude Code, in a fresh session with no memory, run on 5 November 2026. - Verdicts: we traced each finding through the code and gave it one of three verdicts. A real vulnerability is a flaw an attacker can exploit, rated with CVSS 3.1. An informational finding is accurate but not exploitable, such as hardening advice or behaviour the application intends. A false positive is a claim the code does not support.
Results
Claude reported 3 findings, of which 3 were real vulnerabilities. AISafe Labs reported 42, of which 22 were exploitable.
 | Claude | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 3 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 3 |
| Informational | 20 | 0 |
| False positives | 0 | 0 |
Where Claude Security did well. Claude spotted the most severe issue in the benchmark: a role that could be abused to take over an organisation through its single sign-on settings. It also reported two authentication and access-control weaknesses with clear explanations.
Where Claude Security tended to miss. Its review was shallow in breadth, which fits a diff-based command run on a large codebase. It did not report most of the classes AISafe Labs confirmed: tokens leaking through responses and third-party calls, request forgery, session handling after a user is disabled, rate limits, cache headers and race conditions.
Feature comparison
This table covers each product as its vendor describes it, including parts we did not run in the benchmark.
| Feature | | Claude Security |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI SAST | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | Not stated |
| IaC scanning | ✓ | Not stated |
| Black-box pentest | Paid plans | ✗ |
| White-box pentest | Paid plans | ✗ |
| Continuous monitoring | Paid plans | ✗ |
| Proof of exploitation | Paid plans | Partial |
| PR security review | Paid plans | Partial |
| Fix suggestions | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Jira and Linear sync | Paid plans | Beta |
| Self-hosted option | ✓ | Partial |
✓ available, including on free plans · Paid plans: not on the free plan · ✗ not offered · Not stated: the vendor’s own pages do not say. Checked against each vendor's own pages on 10 November 2026.
Pricing comparison
The two products charge for different things, so the table compares how each one bills and works through two examples from list prices.
| Claude Security | |
|---|---|---|
| How it is billed | Credits at $1 each. A code audit is priced by its lines of code and tokens, and the exact cost is shown before it starts | Claude seats plus model tokens. The hosted service is Enterprise only and billed at token cost |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | None; the plugin needs a paid Claude plan, Anthropic API access or a cloud provider |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | Plugin: any paid Claude plan or API usage, with scans counted as normal usage. Hosted service: Claude Enterprise beta, needs a premium seat, billed at token cost with no platform fee |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | Claude Enterprise (sales); up to $25,000 a month in promotional credits for two months, through 2026-12-31 |
| Example: 10 developers, 20 private repositories, one month | $40 a month on Pro ($30 billed yearly), including 40 credits. Code audits of the repositories are extra and priced by their size | Plugin: 10 × $25 = $250 a month on Claude Team. The hosted service needs Enterprise, priced by sales |
| Example: one full scan of a 300,000-line codebase | Priced by code size; the exact cost is shown before you start | Not published: billed by the tokens a scan uses |
List prices in US dollars, before discounts and tax, from each vendor's own pricing page on 10 November 2026. The examples use list prices only.
FAQ
Claude Security is an AI code reviewer. AISafe Labs uses AI agents that validate each finding before reporting it, so its results are real vulnerabilities, including access-control and business-logic defects.
It depends on how you use them. Needs a paid Claude plan for Claude Security in our run. AISafe Labs bills in credits and has a free Basic plan, so compare the pricing pages for your own repository size.
For finding security vulnerabilities in your own code, AISafe Labs covers more classes in our benchmark. Claude Security still does things AISafe Labs does not, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes. Claude in your editor is a fast way to review a change as you write it. AISafe Labs audits the whole application and validates each finding.
No. The command and the plugin need a paid Claude plan, Anthropic API access or a cloud provider account, and the hosted service is in beta for Enterprise plans.
