Secure code training · November 2026 Edition
AppSecEngineer vs Veracode Security Labs
Zero of fourteen models named AppSecEngineer first on the direct prompt; zero named Veracode Security Labs. AppSecEngineer was named by nine of the fourteen models and Veracode Security Labs by twelve and AppSecEngineer carries 15 labels and Veracode Security Labs 23, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%35%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#8A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1523A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, AppSecEngineer reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform vs AppSecEngineer · Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform vs Veracode Security Labs · SecureFlag vs AppSecEngineer
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the secure code training page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AppSecEngineerFirst choices, of fourteen modelsVeracode Security Labs
Direct001 against Veracode Security Labs
Paraphrase11
Comparative00
Budget-constrained001 against Veracode Security Labs
Scale-constrained00
Negative006 against Veracode Security Labs
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, AppSecEngineer and Veracode Security Labs were named in the same answer twenty-four times, of the 55 answers naming AppSecEngineer and the 69 naming Veracode Security Labs. In those answers Veracode Security Labs took the first choice two times and AppSecEngineer four.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where AppSecEngineer and Veracode Security Labs stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | |||||
| Kimi K2 | | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
AppSecEngineer Veracode Security Labs first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, AppSecEngineer on the left and Veracode Security Labs on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where AppSecEngineer and Veracode Security Labs stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: AppSecEngineer, Avatao, SecureFlag
Gemini 3.5 FlashSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: AppSecEngineer, Checkmarx Codebashing, Kontra, SecureFlag, Security Journey
Llama 4 MaverickSecureFlag alternatives: Avatao, ImmersiveLabs, KnowBe4, Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform, Veracode Security Labs
GLM 4.7 FlashXSecureFlag alternatives: AppSecEngineer, Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform, Security Journey
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: AppSec Education Platform, Avatao, SafeStack Academy, SecureFlag
Perplexity SonarSecureFlag alternatives: Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform
Grok 4.20Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: SecureFlag, Security Journey, Snyk Learn
Mistral SmallSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: SecureFlag, Security Journey
DeepSeek V4 FlashSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: SecureFlag, Security Journey
Qwen 3.7 FlashSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: Hack The Box Academy, Pluralsight
Kimi K2Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: Avatao, Immersive Labs, Security Journey
MiniMax M2.5Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: SafeStack Academy, Security Journey
GPT-6 LunaSecureFlag alternatives: Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform, Security Journey
Muse Glimmer 30BSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform alternatives: Checkmarx Codebashing, SafeStack Academy
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
AppSecEngineer leads by two points.
AppSecEngineer2%#7 of 11Veracode Security Labs0%#9 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
AppSecEngineer2%#6 of 13Veracode Security Labs2%#8 of 13Enterprise
AppSecEngineer leads by six points.
AppSecEngineer6%#4 of 7Veracode Security Labs0%#6 of 7What the models said about AppSecEngineer
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“the strongest default recommendation is AppSecEngineer's enterprise secure-coding program” Perplexity Sonar · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“If compliance reporting is critical to your business, AppSecEngineer offers superior documentation” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Choose AppSecEngineer for a broader enterprise program spanning application security, cloud, DevSecOps” Perplexity Sonar · comparative prompt · alternative
What the models said about Veracode Security Labs
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Paid enterprise platforms like Secure Code Warrior, Veracode Security Labs, or Immersive Labs are highly rated for depth and integration but often start at thousands of dollars annually” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · soft negative
“Veracode Security Labs, Synopsys, and Checkmarx Codebashing, which are considered to be high-cost and high-friction” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“they can feel more bolted-on than dedicated platforms like SCW, and pricing may be higher for mid-market” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · soft negative
“SANS and Veracode are both excellent choices” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Best For: Teams already standardized on Veracode scanning who want training that aligns with their existing tooling.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for: Existing Veracode customers wanting training that complements their scanning and remediation workflows.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Secure Code Warrior Learning Platform vs AppSecEngineerSecure Code Warrior Learning Platform vs Veracode Security LabsSecureFlag vs AppSecEngineerSecureFlag vs Veracode Security LabsSnyk Learn vs AppSecEngineerSnyk Learn vs Veracode Security LabsSafeStack Academy vs AppSecEngineerSafeStack Academy vs Veracode Security LabsSecurity Journey vs AppSecEngineerSecurity Journey vs Veracode Security LabsAppSecEngineer vs OWASP Secure Coding DojoOWASP Secure Coding Dojo vs Veracode Security LabsAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full secure code training standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.