Microsoft MDASH vs DryRun Security
A side-by-side look at scores, pricing and features — with RECATOOLS' ASEAN-aware verdict for each.
Microsoft MDASH
Multiple models argue over a suspected bug until one can prove it
Visit
|
DryRun Security
AI-native contextual security for every pull request — catch exploitab...
Visit
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RECATOOLS Score | 7 / 10 | 8.1 / 10 |
| Capability | ||
| Value for money | ||
| Ease of use | ||
| ASEAN readiness | ||
| API quality | ||
| Pricing | Contact | Freemium |
| Free tier | Public preview — external security teams can run the scanner against their own code | Free: basic scans, GitHub integration, limited monthly code reviews |
| Paid from | — | Tiered plans plus custom Enterprise; official per-seat pricing not publicly listed |
| Has API | ✗ | ✓ |
| Open source | ✗ | ✗ |
| Free to use | ✗ | ✓ |
| Users | — | Customers ran 250,000+ code reviews/month as of early 2025; customer count undisclosed |
| Founded | 2026 | 2023 |
| Maker | Microsoft | James Wickett (CEO) and Ken Johnson (CTO) |
| Verdict | The design is the interesting part. Most AI code-scanning fails on precision rather than recall, and MDASH is engineered around exactly that — agents that debate each other, then a proof-of-concept requirement before a f... |
DryRun Security's pitch — trace actual data flow instead of matching regex patterns — holds up under testing. Its own 2025 SAST Accuracy Report caught 23 of 26 seeded vulnerabilities across four public benchmarks (Rails,... |
| Full review → | Full review → |
← Back to AI Directory
Comparisons cover up to 4 tools. Scores are RECATOOLS editorial assessments; verify current pricing on each vendor's site.