Ox Security vs Cycode: Two ASPM Paths for AppSec
Choose Ox when PBOM-backed Active ASPM and VibeSec at the prompt are the product. Choose Cycode when Context Intelligence Graph plus Maestro agent orchestration are the product.
Buying Ox Security and Cycode as if they were interchangeable ASPM seats is how AppSec ends up with two code-to-runtime graphs, two remediation queues, and one team arguing about which ticket is real.
Both are application security posture platforms that correlate findings across the SDLC. Between these two, Ox productizes Active ASPM around a Pipeline Bill of Materials (PBOM) and prompt-to-runtime pillars: VibeSec, Code, Cloud, and Agentic Pentester. Cycode productizes an Agentic Development Security Platform around the Context Intelligence Graph and Maestro orchestration that converges AST, software supply chain security, and ASPM.
If you already shortlist scanner consolidation, the gap is not “another SAST logo.” It is which graph and which agent model the team will live in. Related SCA tooling lives on SCA tools; a different AppSec fork is Snyk vs SonarQube.
| Job | Active ASPM / prompt-to-runtime platform with PBOM lineage across VibeSec, Code, Cloud, and Agentic Pentester | Agentic Development Security Platform converging AST, SSCS, and ASPM on the Context Intelligence Graph plus Maestro |
|---|---|---|
| How risk is scored | Reachable, exploitable, and business-impactful prioritization; Agentic Pentester validates exploitability and links it back to code | Context Intelligence Graph with decision traces; Exploitability Agent and Maestro triage before remediation |
| Deploy | Connect to SCM, CI/CD, and cloud; platform features list on-prem and broker options | SaaS platform with native engines plus connectors; ADLC guardrails for AI coding tools |
| What fails CI | OX Code pipeline scanning and blocking with policies across SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC, and containers | Code Security and Software Supply Chain Security plan gates, including CI/CD security modules |
| License/pricing | Sales-quoted Get Quote; meters by AI user, contributing developer, cloud asset, and agent hours | Sales-quoted Get Pricing; meters by active developer count and AI usage across modular plans |
| Who operates it | AppSec and platform engineering; developers meet VibeSec in the IDE; security owns PBOM and issues | AppSec owns the graph and Maestro scope; developers see guardrails and PR-ready fixes |
Recent launches have not collapsed that split. On 12 March 2026 Ox announced Agentic Pentester, continuous AI-driven exploit validation tied back to source. On 23 March 2026 Cycode unveiled its Agentic Development Security Platform with Maestro orchestration, AI governance, and guardrails. One still leads with PBOM and prompt-level prevention. The other still leads with CIG plus agent orchestration.
A comment on Hacker News in January 2026 put Cycode next to Snyk as the kind of vulnerability and version-management stack bigger companies run across lots of repos. That is why these two land on the same ASPM shortlist. It is not proof they share one product story.
We reviewed first-party documentation, public pricing pages, release notes, and live community threads. We did not test the products in paid production environments, so this is not a hands-on benchmark.
Ox Security
Cycode
Editions and pricing
Neither vendor publishes a self-serve dollar table a spreadsheet can trust without sales. Packaging still differs: Ox sells four named pillars with explicit meters; Cycode sells modular plan lines plus separate Cycode AI usage.
| Public price table | Get Quote on ox.security/pricing (verified 5 Sep 2026). No public dollar SKU | Get Pricing on cycode.com/pricing (verified 5 Sep 2026). No public dollar amounts |
|---|---|---|
| Named lines | OX VibeSec, OX Code, OX Cloud, OX Agentic Pentester, plus OX Platform features | ADLC Security, Code Security, Software Supply Chain Security, Posture Management, Cycode Complete, plus Cycode AI |
| What the quote usually meters | AI users, contributing developers, cloud assets, and agent hours, depending on pillars selected | Active developer count and AI usage across the selected plan bundle |
| Free forever SKU | None on the public pricing page | None listed as a forever-free SKU on the pricing page |
If procurement needs a published monthly seat price before a call, both vendors will stall that spreadsheet. Ask for developer counting rules, AI-usage true-ups, and which pillars or plan lines are in the same quote.
What fails CI
| Primary gate | OX Code pipeline scanning and blocking with OOTB and custom policies | Code Security and SSCS policy gates wired into the pipeline you already run |
|---|---|---|
| Scanner surface | SAST, SCA, secrets/PII, IaC, containers, CI/CD, git posture, malicious dependency checks | SAST, SCA, container, IaC on Code Security; CI/CD security, secrets, SBOM on SSCS |
| AI-era control point | VibeSec governs AI users, MCPs, skills, and generated code before insecure patterns land | ADLC Security adds AI visibility, governance, and guardrails at the agentic development surface |
| What teams argue about | Which pillar policies block merges vs which stay advisory until PBOM context is trusted | Which plan line owns the fail and how AI-usage metering changes with auto-remediation |
Between these two, do not buy “blocks CI” as a unique checkbox. Both can fail a pipeline when policies say so. Buy the control point your developers will actually feel: Ox VibeSec plus Code blocking, or Cycode ADLC guardrails plus Code/SSCS gates.
What each tool produces
| Primary artifact | Deduplicated issues with PBOM lineage from source control through pipeline and cloud | Context Intelligence Graph records with decision traces across code, build, and runtime signals |
|---|---|---|
| Exploit proof | Agentic Pentester findings that validate reachability and point to the owning code | Exploitability Agent output that confirms whether a CVE is actually reachable |
| Remediation shape | AI remediation recommendations, open PR / ticketing / messaging orchestration on the platform | Maestro-orchestrated Remediation Agent with PR-ready fixes and an audit trail |
| Operator daily view | Issues, SLA/MTTR, and PBOM-backed inventory across selected pillars | Graph queries, agent runs, and plan-scoped dashboards (including Posture Management connectors) |
That skepticism still maps to the buyer question for both vendors: agentic remediation is only useful if the evidence trail survives audit. Between these two, Ox leans on PBOM lineage plus Agentic Pentester proof. Cycode leans on CIG decision traces plus Maestro’s explainable agent runs.
Where they overlap
Both sell ASPM for AppSec teams that are tired of disconnected SAST, SCA, secrets, and pipeline scanners. Both prioritize reachable and exploitable risk over raw CVE volume. Both ship AI-era controls for coding agents and both offer sales-quoted enterprise packaging. If your RFP only says “ASPM with code-to-runtime context and AI remediation,” both will tick the box.
When to use both
Running both is rare and usually wasteful. One ASPM graph is enough for most AppSec programs. Keep a second only during a time-boxed bake-off, or when a regulated estate forces parallel validation you cannot fold into one tenant.
Skip Cycode for this pair if the buying committee already standardized on Ox PBOM lineage and VibeSec at the prompt, and Maestro-style multi-agent orchestration is not a requirement. Skip Ox for this pair if the team wants Context Intelligence Graph decision traces and Maestro as the default remediation conductor, and is willing to live in Cycode’s plan-line packaging.
Decide the graph first. If the product must be PBOM-backed Active ASPM with VibeSec at the prompt, that is Ox. If the product must be Context Intelligence Graph plus Maestro orchestration, that is Cycode. Only then open the sales quotes.
FAQs
Are Ox Security and Cycode the same ASPM?
No. Both are ASPM platforms for AppSec, but between these two Ox leads with PBOM and prompt-to-runtime pillars, and Cycode leads with the Context Intelligence Graph and Maestro agent orchestration.
Do I need the agentic remediator on day one?
Often no. Start with the graph and CI gates you trust. Add Agentic Pentester or Maestro-driven auto-fix when evidence quality and ownership rules are clear.
Is there a public list price?
Not a trustworthy self-serve dollar table on either first-party pricing surface we checked on 5 Sep 2026. Expect sales-quoted contracts metered on developers and AI or agent usage.
Is this a scored bake-off?
No. Order is editorial.
