Spec sheets all look alike. The differences that matter show up in five dimensions — and only a proof of concept on your own code reveals them.
| Dimension | What to probe | Why it separates tools |
|---|---|---|
| Detection capability | Snippet-level scanning? Binary analysis? Transitive depth? | Manifest-only tools miss copied code, vendored libraries and AI-generated fragments entirely |
| Data quality | Vulnerability DB coverage, update latency, proprietary intelligence | A scanner is only as good as what it matches against — ask how many sources, how fast advisories land |
| False-positive governance | Version-accurate matching, reachability analysis, policy customization | Alert fatigue kills programs; triage cost is the hidden price of a cheap tool |
| Engineering fit | CI/IDE integration, incremental scan speed, API | A gate that slows the pipeline gets disabled within a quarter |
| Compliance output | SPDX/CycloneDX export, NOTICE generation, audit reports | The document your customer receives is the part of the tool they judge |
Three recurring ones: no snippet detection (fails the M&A audit two years later), no offline mode (fails the bank deployment), and pricing by scan volume (punishes exactly the CI-integration behavior you want). Ask all three before the demo, not after the shortlist.
The fastest way to start: run a real scan today with CleanSource Community Edition, then bring the results to a structured POC. You can also download this checklist as a PDF.
Two to four weeks is typical: one week to integrate and scan representative repositories, the rest to evaluate triage workload and gate behavior in real CI runs.
During evaluation, yes — same codebase, compare recall and false positives directly. In production, one primary engine with clear policy beats two overlapping ones.
See it on your own codebase.
商务合作
微信公众号