Securie vs GitHub Advanced Security

Updated

GitHub Advanced Security (CodeQL + Dependabot + Secret Scanning) is the platform-bundled option. Securie is the autonomous security engineer for fast-moving codebases, including AI-assisted apps. Both can run together.

GHAS is the GitHub-native bundle. Buyers running GitHub already have it; the question is whether to add Securie.

TL;DR

GHAS is the platform default. Securie is the AI-built-app specialist. Run both for complementary coverage.

Feature comparison

SecurieGitHub Advanced Security
CodeQL semantic analysisLimited — data-flow intent analysis for security-specific patternsStrong — their core
DependabotOSV.dev integrationYes — their core
Secret scanningYes + live_validate + .claude/ specificsYes — push protection
Sandbox-verified prove-don't-flagYes — Firecracker microVMNo
Supabase RLS specialistYesNo
AI-built-app specialist depth26 detectors + red-team and offensive validationGeneral CodeQL only
Auto-fix PR with sandbox proofYesLimited
Attestation chainDSSE + Sigstore rekorGitHub-internal only
Pricing — Public repoPublic OSS $0; private from $29/moFree for public
Pricing — Private repo enterprise$499/mo Team$49/committer/mo + GHE pricing

Where the difference shows up in practice

Supabase RLS disabled

GitHub Advanced Security: CodeQL has no Supabase-specific specialist.

Securie: Specialist catches at PR.

BOLA on /api/orders/[id]

GitHub Advanced Security: CodeQL's authz analysis can catch some patterns; specialist depth varies.

Securie: AuthAuthz specialist + sandbox-verify.

.claude/settings.local.json with sk-ant-

GitHub Advanced Security: Secret Scanning catches Anthropic key pattern.

Securie: secrets specialist + secrets-lifecycle catches dot-directory inclusion structurally + flags rotation playbook.

MCP server config with credentials

GitHub Advanced Security: Limited — outside CodeQL scope.

Securie: The MCP trust-enforcement layer detects + secrets specialist flags credential storage pattern.

The deeper tradeoff

GHAS bundles three products: CodeQL (semantic SAST), Dependabot (dependency updates), and Secret Scanning (push protection). Each is solid; the bundle is GitHub-native and integrates cleanly with the GitHub PR workflow.

The AI-built-app gap is where Securie differs. CodeQL's semantic analysis is general-purpose; the Apr 2026 wave of AI-built-app bugs (Lovable BOLA, Supabase RLS misconfig, .claude/ credential leaks, MCP RCE) requires specialist depth that GHAS doesn't ship.

The sandbox-verified prove-don't-flag invariant is the second axis. CodeQL findings are pattern-match; Securie's findings are sandbox-reproduced. The trust difference compounds when teams scale.

Most reasonable choice: run both. GHAS at GitHub-native pricing for the general layer + Securie for the AI-built-app specialist + closed-loop layer.

Pricing

Securie

$29-$12,000/mo paid ladder

GitHub Advanced Security

$49/committer/mo + GHE

Migration playbook

Step 1: Keep GHAS

What: No change.

Why: GitHub-native bundle stays valuable.

Gotchas: Don't expect AI-built-app specialist depth from CodeQL.

Step 2: Add Securie

What: GitHub App.

Why: Specialist depth + sandbox-verify + closed loop.

Gotchas: Both checks for branch protection.

When to pick GitHub Advanced Security

GitHub-native organizations with simple SAST needs + low FP tolerance.

When to pick Securie

AI-built apps + sandbox-verified prove-don't-flag + specialist depth.

Bottom line

GHAS for general SAST + dependency scanning at GitHub-platform pricing. Securie for sandbox-verified prove-don't-flag + AI-built-app specialist depth.

FAQ

Can I run both?

Yes — GHAS + Securie complementary.

Does Securie replace CodeQL?

Different shapes. CodeQL is semantic-analysis-of-anything. Securie is specialist-fleet-targeted-at-AI-built-app-bug-classes.

What about GitHub Advanced Security pricing per committer?

GHAS at $49/committer/mo scales linearly. Securie's per-tenant capped envelope ($499 Team) doesn't.