Code review pricing depends heavily on codebase size, language complexity, and whether you want a one-time audit or ongoing involvement.
The primary cost driver is the size of the codebase and number of repositories in scope — more lines of code and more distinct systems both mean more reviewer time. Language and framework complexity matters too; some ecosystems have more mature tooling and known patterns to check against than others.
Whether you want a one-time audit or ongoing review as code changes is a major structural decision that affects pricing, as does whether CI/CD integration work is included as part of the engagement.
A one-time audit gives you a snapshot of current risk across your codebase — useful for understanding where you stand today, particularly before a major release or compliance deadline.
Ongoing support catches issues as they're introduced, continuously, which tends to cost less per-issue-caught over time than repeated one-off audits, since problems are cheaper to fix when they're caught close to the moment they're written rather than accumulated and discovered later.
A thorough review combines automated static analysis with manual review by someone who understands both security and your specific application's business logic — automated tools alone tend to miss logic flaws that require human judgment to spot.
Yes — existing codebase reviews are common, and often surface higher-priority findings than reviewing new code alone, since legacy code frequently predates current security practices.
Coverage spans the common modern languages and frameworks; if you're working in something unusual or highly specialized, it's worth confirming fit during scoping.