Cursor Bugbot vs Veracode Fix
Cursor Bugbot (Anysphere) and Veracode Fix (Veracode) are both listed in the Code security category of Agent Index. They share no framework tags in our dataset.
| Field |  Cursor Bugbot |  Veracode Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Anysphere | Veracode |
| HQ | United States · North America | United States · North America |
| Primary category | Code security | Code security |
| Also listed in | Code security, Security | Code security, Security |
| Summary | Cursor’s AI pull-request reviewer. Official docs say it identifies bugs, security issues and code-quality problems and comments with explanations and suggested fixes. | Veracode’s AI-assisted remediation for SAST flaws and SCA dependency vulnerabilities, with suggested patches in IDE, CLI and SCM workflows. |
| Framework tags (Agent Index) | — | — |
| Frameworks (vendor-claimed) | — | — |
| Capabilities / tasks | pr review, appsec, remediation | appsec, sast, remediation, vulnerability management, sca |
| Pricing (as published) | Usage-based on Individual and Teams plans; no separate Bugbot subscription. Cursor’s Bugbot page states Individual plans use included usage first, Teams bill from on-demand usage, and the average review costs $1.00–$1.50 depending on PR size. Enterprise trials are arranged with the account team. | Not verified |
| Pricing model | published-tiers | quote |
| Primary source | https://cursor.com/docs/bugbot | https://www.veracode.com/products/fix/ |
| Last checked | 2026-10-18 | 2026-10-18 |
| Official site | https://cursor.com/docs/bugbot | https://www.veracode.com/products/fix/ |
Side-by-side data is generated from the open dataset. “Vendor-claimed” frameworks are as marketed by each vendor and not verified by Agent Index; framework tags indicate relevance, not certification. Request current quotes from each vendor before buying. This page does not rank or score vendors. Sponsored comparisons, if any, will be labelled.
Also in this use case
Other verified listings that share a task tag or use-case group with Cursor Bugbot or Veracode Fix. Open a pair page or the use-case table — this is not a ranking.
- Aikido AI AutoFix — Aikido AutoFix turns SAST, SCA, IaC, container, pentest and AI code-audit findings into reviewable pull requests or IDE patches. Vendor is Belgium-founded with a Ghent European HQ. · Aikido AI AutoFix pair comparison
- Amazon Q Developer security scanning — Amazon Q Developer code reviews that scan for SAST issues, secrets, IaC misconfigurations, quality issues, deployment risks and SCA, with some in-IDE suggested fixes. · Amazon Q Developer security scanning pair comparison
- Checkmarx One Assist — Family of agentic AppSec agents on Checkmarx One (Developer Assist in the IDE, plus triage/remediation). Checkmarx Ltd’s registered office is Ramat Gan, Israel. · Checkmarx One Assist pair comparison
- Claude Code security review — Anthropic automated security review in Claude Code: the /security-review command and the anthropics/claude-code-security-review GitHub Action for pull-request comments. · Claude Code security review pair comparison
- Codacy AI Reviewer — Hybrid AI pull-request reviewer from Codacy (Lisbon). Combines static analysis with LLM context; vendor pages include security-vulnerability feedback and suggested fixes. · Codacy AI Reviewer pair comparison
- GitHub Copilot Autofix — LLM-generated suggested fixes for GitHub code-scanning alerts (CodeQL). Part of GitHub Code Security / Advanced Security; no separate Copilot subscription is required. · GitHub Copilot Autofix pair comparison
- GitLab Duo Vulnerability Resolution — GitLab Duo features that explain SAST vulnerabilities and open merge requests with proposed AI remediations, including an agentic resolution flow. · GitLab Duo Vulnerability Resolution pair comparison
- Semgrep Multimodal — Semgrep’s AI layer (successor branding to Semgrep Assistant) for detection, triage, remediation guidance and optional autofix on the Semgrep AppSec Platform. · Semgrep Multimodal pair comparison
- SonarQube AI CodeFix — Sonar LLM-generated fix suggestions for a documented subset of SonarQube issues, in Cloud Team/Enterprise and Server Enterprise/Data Center editions. · SonarQube AI CodeFix pair comparison
Use-case comparisons
- AI code security agents — 12 listings (Application security scanning, suggested or automated code fixes, and pull-request security review)
Related
More Cursor Bugbot comparisons
- Aikido AI AutoFix vs Cursor Bugbot
- Amazon Q Developer security scanning vs Cursor Bugbot
- Checkmarx One Assist vs Cursor Bugbot
- Claude Code security review vs Cursor Bugbot
- Codacy AI Reviewer vs Cursor Bugbot