AISafe Labs and Semgrep both help you catch security bugs before they ship, but they're very different tools below the surface:
Semgrep is a static analysis tool that matches code against rules you can read and write. The Community Edition is free and runs locally.
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 Semgrep?
1. There are no rules to write
Semgrep matches your code against rules you read, write and maintain. That makes it fast and transparent, but it can only find what a rule describes.
AISafe Labs uses AI agents that read your application the way an attacker would, so there are no rulesets to choose or keep up to date.
2. Every finding is validated
In our benchmark, Semgrep Community Edition reported no real vulnerabilities, and about 41% of its findings were false positives.
AISafe Labs validates each finding before reporting it. It confirmed real vulnerabilities in the same application, including broken access control, token exposure, SSRF and race conditions.
Ready to secure your app?
Comparing AISafe Labs and Semgrep
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 Semgrep if you:
- want transparent rules you can read, edit and run entirely on your own machines
- need a free scanner in CI that your developers can extend with custom rules
- enforce coding standards with your own patterns
How we tested
We ran AISafe Labs and Semgrep 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 Scan (SAST) with default settings, run on 4 November 2026.
- Semgrep: Semgrep Community Edition 1.183.0, run locally with the default, OWASP Top Ten, secrets, TypeScript, React and Node.js rulesets (267 rules), 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
Semgrep reported 92 findings, and none was a real vulnerability. AISafe Labs reported 42, of which 22 were exploitable.
 | Semgrep CE | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 92 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 0 |
| Informational | 20 | 54 |
| False positives | 0 | 38 |
| Cost of this run | Free | Free |
Where Semgrep did well. Semgrep is quick and precise at flagging known patterns. It correctly points at places where embedded pages post messages with a wildcard origin, and at CI workflows that pin actions by tag instead of by commit. Those are worthwhile hardening items.
Where Semgrep tended to miss. Pattern rules cannot tell whether a given use is dangerous in context. Many of its findings were on code that sends only a harmless status event, or on test files, and none of them was a vulnerability. It did not surface any of the classes that need an understanding of the application: broken access control, authentication and session handling, token exposure, SSRF 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 | | Semgrep |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | Beta |
| AI SAST | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | Paid plans |
| IaC scanning | ✓ | ✓ |
| Black-box pentest | Paid plans | ✗ |
| White-box pentest | Paid plans | ✗ |
| Continuous monitoring | Paid plans | ✗ |
| Proof of exploitation | Paid plans | ✗ |
| PR security review | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Fix suggestions | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Jira and Linear sync | Paid plans | ✓ |
| Self-hosted option | ✓ | ✓ |
✓ 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.
| Semgrep | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Per contributor a month (anyone who committed to a scanned private repository in the last 90 days), plus AI credits |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | Community Edition is free and open source. Free Edition of the platform: Code and Supply Chain for up to 10 contributors and 10 private repos, 60 AI credits a month |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | Teams: Code $30, Supply Chain $30 and Secrets $15 per contributor per month, 20 AI credits per contributor per month |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | Custom volume pricing, 50 AI credits per contributor per month, on-prem source code managers |
| 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 | 10 × $30 = $300 a month for Semgrep Code on Teams. The Free plan allows 10 private repositories |
| Example: one full scan of a 300,000-line codebase | Priced by code size; the exact cost is shown before you start | $0 on the Free plan or with Community Edition |
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
Semgrep is a rule-based scanner. 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.
For this comparison, both were free. AISafe Labs Code Scan is included in the free Basic plan, and our Semgrep run cost nothing either. Paid plans differ, so compare the pricing pages for what you need beyond scanning.
For finding security vulnerabilities in your own code, AISafe Labs covers more classes in our benchmark. Semgrep still does things AISafe Labs does not, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes. Semgrep is a good fast first line of defence in CI, especially with custom rules for your own conventions. AISafe Labs adds the logic-level findings that rules do not express.
Yes. Semgrep Community Edition is free and open source, and the platform's Free Edition covers up to 10 contributors and 10 private repositories. Paid tiers add secrets scanning, more AI credits and deeper analysis.
