Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) vs Qodo multi-agent code review
Quick answer
Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) (Escape) and Qodo multi-agent code review (Qodo (Codium Ltd.)) are both listed in the Code security category of Agent Index.
They share no framework tags in our dataset.
This is not a ranking.
Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) (Escape) and Qodo multi-agent code review (Qodo (Codium Ltd.)) are both listed in the Code security category of Agent Index. They share no framework tags in our dataset.
| Field |  Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) |  Qodo multi-agent code review |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Escape | Qodo (Codium Ltd.) |
| HQ | France · Europe | Israel · Middle East |
| Primary category | Code security | Code security |
| Also listed in | Code security, Security | Code security |
| Summary | Offensive security platform using AI agents for attack surface discovery, business-logic DAST and multi-agent pentesting (Cascade) of APIs and web apps. | Agentic pull-request review platform (formerly CodiumAI) that flags bugs, security issues and rule violations with organisational context. A general code reviewer, not a dedicated SAST scanner. |
| Frameworks (vendor-stated) | — | — |
| Frameworks (vendor-claimed) | — | — |
| Capabilities / tasks | appsec, pen test management, attack surface | pr review, appsec, code quality |
| Pricing (as published) | Quote-based | Free 14-day trial. Pro Team plan (designed for up to 30 users) is listed from $30 on qodo.ai/pricing with pooled credit packs at $0.012 per credit (for example 2,500 credits ≈ 18 reviews/month); Enterprise (30+ users, SSO, on-prem, BYOK) is custom. Confirm the billing unit on the vendor page. |
| Pricing model | quote | published-tiers |
| Primary source | https://escape.tech/blog/introducing-cascade-the-multi-agent-penetration-testing/ | https://www.qodo.ai/products/qodo-merge/ |
| Last checked | 2026-10-18 | 2026-10-18 |
| Official site | https://escape.tech/ | https://www.qodo.ai/products/qodo-merge/ |
FAQ (from this dataset)
What is the difference between Escape and Qodo multi-agent code review?
Both are listed under Code security. Shared tasks: appsec. Escape-only tasks: pen-test-management, attack-surface. Qodo multi-agent code review-only tasks: pr-review, code-quality. Differences are from stored category and task tags, not a ranking.
Which one publishes pricing?
Escape (AI pentesting and DAST): Quote-based Qodo multi-agent code review: Free 14-day trial. Pro Team plan (designed for up to 30 users) is listed from $30 on qodo.ai/pricing with pooled credit packs at $0.012 per credit (for example 2,500 credits ≈ 18 reviews/month); Enterprise (30+ users, SSO, on-prem, BYOK) is custom. Confirm the billing unit on the vendor page.
Where are Escape and Qodo multi-agent code review headquartered?
Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) publishes HQ in France. Qodo multi-agent code review publishes HQ in Israel.
Also in this use case
Other verified listings that share a task tag or use-case group with Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) or Qodo multi-agent code review. Open a pair page or the use-case table — this is not a ranking.
- Amnify security agents (agent-driven code audit, AI pentesting, PR review and autofix pull requests) — German AppSec product from Düsseldorf: a team of agents audits repositories (SAST, secrets, SCA, IaC, CI/CD) and cloud accounts, triages signals so only confirmed findings surface, pentests running apps inside a verified scope with a separate agent reproducing every finding, reviews pull requests with a merge-blocking status check, and opens fix pull requests that run your tests but never merge themselves. · Amnify security agents (agent-driven code audit, AI pentesting, PR review and autofix pull requests) pair comparison
- noze CyberAgent (AI agent for continuous attack-surface monitoring, automated validation pentesting and NIS2 evidence) — Italian agent for mid-sized companies and NIS2 entities without an in-house SOC: after verifying domain control it continuously discovers assets and assesses network, web apps and APIs, correlates findings with EPSS and CISA KEV, confirms exploitability with automated validation pentests, ranks risks by business impact and prepares NIS2, DORA and ISO 27001 reports; the team decides what to fix.
Use-case comparisons
- AI code security agents — 33 listings (Application security scanning, suggested or automated code fixes, and pull-request security review)
- Agentic pentesting AI agents — 33 listings (Autonomous or AI-assisted penetration testing, attack-surface testing and exploitable-path verification)
Related
- Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) alternatives
- Qodo multi-agent code review alternatives
- Best code security AI agents
More Escape (AI pentesting and DAST) comparisons
- Aikido AI AutoFix vs Escape (AI pentesting and DAST)
- AISLE (autonomous vulnerability discovery, triage and verified-fix agents) vs Escape (AI pentesting and DAST)
- Amazon Q Developer security scanning vs Escape (AI pentesting and DAST)
- Amnify security agents (agent-driven code audit, AI pentesting, PR review and autofix pull requests) vs Escape (AI pentesting and DAST)
- Black Duck Signal (agentic AI AppSec) vs Escape (AI pentesting and DAST)
More Qodo multi-agent code review comparisons
- Aikido AI AutoFix vs Qodo multi-agent code review
- AISLE (autonomous vulnerability discovery, triage and verified-fix agents) vs Qodo multi-agent code review
- Amazon Q Developer security scanning vs Qodo multi-agent code review
- Amnify security agents (agent-driven code audit, AI pentesting, PR review and autofix pull requests) vs Qodo multi-agent code review
- Black Duck Signal (agentic AI AppSec) vs Qodo multi-agent code review