AISafe Labs and Vercel Security Review both use AI to review your code for security issues, but they cover very different ground:
Vercel Security Review is an AI security reviewer that analyses code changes. It was in public beta at the time of our run.
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 Vercel Security Review?
1. It audits the whole application, not just changes
Vercel Security Review analyses code changes. We gave it the full codebase as a series of diff reviews, and it found about 40% fewer validated vulnerabilities than AISafe Labs.
It tended to miss issues that span several features: two-factor and re-authentication weaknesses, rate limits, cache headers on private documents, webhook SSRF guards and race conditions. An AISafe Labs Code Audit covers the entire codebase at once.
2. It also pentests your live application
Vercel Security Review 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 Vercel Security Review
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 Vercel Security Review if you:
- deploy on Vercel and want security review inside the workflow you already use
- review changes as they land and want findings tied to a diff
- already pay for Vercel Pro and want each review billed only for the tokens it uses
How we tested
We ran AISafe Labs and Vercel Security Review 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.
- Vercel Security Review: Vercel Security Review during its public beta, on its own platform, 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
Vercel Security Review reported 12 findings, of which 12 were real vulnerabilities. AISafe Labs reported 42, of which 22 were exploitable.
 | Vercel Security Review | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 12 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 12 |
| Informational | 20 | 0 |
| False positives | 0 | 0 |
Where Vercel Security Review did well. Vercel did well on token and embed handling, on request forgery through image generation, on styling-based credential theft, and on file-access checks. Its findings were precise and well explained, with no false positives.
Where Vercel Security Review tended to miss. It tended to miss the classes that sit across several features at once: two-factor and re-authentication weaknesses, rate limits and trusted proxy headers, cache headers on private documents, open redirects, webhook SSRF guards, and race conditions around limits and completion. It also did not report tokens leaking through list responses.
Feature comparison
This table covers each product as its vendor describes it, including parts we did not run in the benchmark.
| Feature | | Vercel Security Review |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | Partial |
| AI SAST | ✓ | Beta |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | Beta |
| 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 | Beta |
| Fix suggestions | Paid plans | Beta |
| 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.
| Vercel Security Review | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Model tokens for each reviewed push (provider cost plus $0.25 per million tokens), on Pro or Enterprise |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | None; needs Pro or Enterprise. Reviews were free until 10 November 2026 |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | Pro $20 per developer seat per month, plus provider token cost and $0.25 per million tokens |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | Custom |
| 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 × $20 = $200 a month for Pro seats, plus review tokens, which are not published |
| 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 each review 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
Vercel Security Review 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. Free during the public beta, about 1.5 hours for the run for Vercel Security Review 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. Vercel Security Review still does things AISafe Labs does not, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes. Vercel Security Review is a good fit for catching issues in the diff before merge. AISafe Labs audits the whole application, including the cross-feature logic that a single diff does not show.
Vercel Security Review was free during its public beta. After the beta it is billed at provider token cost plus a per-token fee, so check Vercel's current pricing.
