Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Veracode vendor trust score

Trust scoring is the “is this vendor a fair counterparty” question, deliberately separated from product quality. Six dimensions, dated, sourced where events warrant it.

6.3
/10
cautious
Verdict

Veracode's vendor trust profile warrants caution. Below-average dimensions need explicit mitigation language in the contract.

Vendor Trust Score

Is Veracode a trustworthy vendor?

6.3/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
5.0
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
6.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
7.0
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
6.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
7.0
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
6.5
Trust signal log
  • 2017-03-06
    CA Technologies acquires Veracode for $614M
    First major change in ownership; integration into CA portfolio drew customer concerns.
  • 2018-11-05
    Broadcom inherits Veracode via CA acquisition
    Broadcom-CA deal closed; Veracode operated under Broadcom Software Group.
  • 2022-05-04
    Thoma Bravo $1B+ majority investment in Veracode
    Take-private style transaction; Thoma Bravo control raised post-PE product-investment questions consistent with broader Thoma Bravo dev-tools playbook.
  • 2024-09-22
    Customer reports of slower feature velocity post-Thoma-Bravo
    Multiple buyer disclosures of slower roadmap delivery through 2023-2024; consolidation focus over feature innovation.
Vendor Trust is scored independently of product quality. A great product from an unfair vendor still earns a low trust score.

How to read this score

  • Trust is separate from product quality. A vendor can ship great software and treat customers badly — or vice versa. We score the two independently.
  • 8.0+/10: strong. Few concerns at renewal or procurement.
  • 6.5–7.9: mixed. Negotiate hard on the lowest dimensions; monitor across the contract term.
  • 5.0–6.4: cautious. Add explicit mitigation language to the master agreement.
  • Below 5.0: concerning. Treat this as a contracted-risk evaluation, not a product-fit evaluation.
  • Updates: we re-verify scoring quarterly. Material trust events (acquisitions, breaches, leadership change, hostile contract terms) get logged on the timeline above.

Related editorial

Last updated 2026-05-10. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.