AISafe Labs and Codex Security both use AI agents to find security bugs in your code, but they're different in a few important ways:
Codex Security is OpenAI's code security agent. It scans connected GitHub repositories in Codex, and a plugin, open-source CLI and SDK scan code locally or in CI and propose patches.
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 Codex Security?
1. It covers more vulnerability classes
Codex Security is strong on authorization logic, like who may sign a document and in what order. In our benchmark it tended to miss data exposure and infrastructure issues: tokens sent to third-party analytics, request forgery through webhooks, cache headers on private files and race conditions.
On the same commit, Codex Security found about 45% fewer validated vulnerabilities than AISafe Labs.
2. It also pentests your live application
Codex 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.
3. It's a dedicated security platform
Codex Security is one feature of Codex, OpenAI's coding agent.
AISafe Labs is built only for application security. Alongside its code audits, it covers SAST, AI SAST, dependency, secrets and IaC scanning.
Ready to secure your app?
Comparing AISafe Labs and Codex 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 Codex Security if you:
- already use Codex and want security scanning in the same tool
- 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 Codex Security 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.
- Codex Security: Codex Security Cloud, a one-time scan of the repository with default settings, 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
Codex Security reported 16 findings, of which 11 were real vulnerabilities. AISafe Labs reported 42, of which 22 were exploitable.
 | Codex Security | |
|---|---|---|
| Findings reported | 42 | 16 |
| Real vulnerabilities | 22 | 11 |
| Informational | 20 | 4 |
| False positives | 0 | 1 |
Where Codex Security did well. Codex did well on authorization logic: team-scoped API tokens, who may sign or reject and in what order, embed token lifetimes, and two-factor recovery.
Where Codex Security tended to miss. It tended to miss data exposure and infrastructure classes: tokens sent to third-party analytics and returned in list responses, request forgery through webhooks, cache headers on private files, open redirects, trusted proxy headers, and races around account and organisation limits.
Feature comparison
This table covers each product as its vendor describes it, including parts we did not run in the benchmark.
| Feature | | Codex Security |
|---|---|---|
| Source code audit | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI SAST | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dependency scanning (SCA) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Secrets detection | ✓ | ✗ |
| IaC scanning | ✓ | ✗ |
| Black-box pentest | Paid plans | ✗ |
| White-box pentest | Paid plans | Partial |
| Continuous monitoring | Paid plans | ✗ |
| Proof of exploitation | Paid plans | Partial |
| PR security review | Paid plans | 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.
| Codex 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 | Model tokens, billed in credits outside the plan's included Codex usage |
| Free plan | Basic: SAST, AI SAST, SCA, secrets, licence risk and IaC, no card required | None; eligible accounts get $500 in free scanning credits |
| Paid plans | Pro: $40, $100, $250 or $500 a month ($30, $75, $200 or $400 billed yearly), with the same number of credits | Cloud scans billed by token usage at plan rates, outside the included Codex allowance; PR security reviews use Codex allowance on Pro, Business, Edu and Enterprise |
| Enterprise | Custom credit volumes | ChatGPT Enterprise and Edu |
| 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 × $25 = $250 a month for ChatGPT Business seats, plus scan usage, which is 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 a scan uses. Eligible accounts get $500 of free scanning credits |
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
Codex 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. Within a ChatGPT plan, no published per-scan price for Codex 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. Codex Security still does things AISafe Labs does not, as listed in the verdict above, so many teams keep both.
Yes, and for high-risk applications we would suggest it. The two tools found different real issues, so running both gives you more coverage than either on its own.
No, but eligible accounts get $500 in free scanning credits. After that, cloud scans are billed by token usage, and the open-source CLI can run on your own model provider account.
