Code quality
Is this code maintainable — or expensive to own?
Every file in the estate — every repository in scope — is scored and benchmarked against other audits. You see whether the code will slow the plan down, how it compares to peers, and what it takes to bring it up to standard.
Quality
75
Global 63
Functionality
49
Global 46
Performance
52
Global 49
Security
33
Global 32
Compatibility
83
Global 86
Documentation
61
Global 29
Standards
65
Global 65
Above the global average on 5 of 7
Largest lead: Documentation +32
Weakest: Security 33 · peers 32
Trusted by
Beyond a vendor score
A single score is not diligence.
You need to know where the score comes from, whether it is normal for the market, and what it costs to change.
Every file, not a sample
Each source file is reviewed against production-ready standards across seven categories — so weak spots show up where they are, not averaged away.
One health number, with its drivers
Code quality, verified security, and test coverage in one score — with the driver pulling it down in plain view.
Benchmarked against peers
Each category sits next to the average of other CodeDD audits, so you can tell a company-specific problem from a market norm.
The health score
See which driver pulls health down.
Solid code with weak tests is a testing gap. Weak code throughout is a maintainability problem. The breakdown tells you which one you are buying — and who to staff.
The work
What it takes to reach your standard.
The gap to your quality and coverage target, sized in days — with security findings alongside, so the total is the real work.
63
Overall health
Out of 100 · quality, confirmed security, coverage
Code quality
73/100 50% · 36.5 pts
Verified security
59/100 30% · 17.7 pts
Test coverage
44/100 20% · 8.8 pts
Vertical mark is the organisation target (80). Gap to target drives the hours.
Days to your target
88.2
About $106k at $150/h · includes 5.3 days of package CVEs
- 57.6d
Verified security findings
15 Critical · 263 High
- 14.1d
Missing tests
451 files to reach 80% coverage
- 11.2d
Below-standard code
358 files below the quality target
Against peers
A problem, or just the market?
Seven category scores against the global average of CodeDD audits. Here, documentation is far ahead of peers and security is weak — but no weaker than the norm. That changes the conversation from a red flag to a planned improvement.
Documentation sits 32 points above the global average. Security is weak, but in line with peers.
Across the investment cycle
Where the score gets used
Pre-deal tech DD
Know whether the codebase is an asset or a rebuild before the price assumes one or the other.
Hold period
Set a quality target in the value-creation plan and re-audit to show the gap closing.
Pre-sale preparation
Raise the categories a buyer will benchmark first, and show the trend, not just the score.
FAQ
Questions
How is a file scored?
Each source file is reviewed against production-ready standards across seven categories: quality, functionality, performance, security posture, compatibility, documentation, and standards. Ratings use fixed scales. Very small files and non-code — lockfiles, data, generated blobs — are skipped rather than scored.
What goes into the health score?
Code quality counts for 50%, verified security for 30%, and test coverage for 20%. Verified security is built from confirmed findings and known package vulnerabilities; test coverage is measured against your target.
Why is the security score on the peer chart different from the one in health?
The peer chart uses the file-level security posture score, so every audit is compared on the same seven axes. The health score uses verified security — confirmed findings and known CVEs — which is the stronger evidence. Both are shown so neither is mistaken for the other.
How precise is the peer comparison?
It is indicative. The scores use the same form on every audit, so a gap of twenty points is meaningful; a gap of three is not a ranking. Use it to decide where to look closer.
How is this different from a linter or SonarQube?
Linters and SonarQube catch known patterns and style issues line by line. This reviews each file for maintainability, completeness, and design, and puts the result next to peers — a view built for a decision rather than a code review.
What happens to our source code?
In a cloud audit, scoped source is analysed and then overwritten; CodeDD keeps structured scores, not source. The audit can also run in your own environment.
See how a codebase you are evaluating compares
Run it on a repository yourself, or book a walkthrough of the scores, the peer comparison, and the cost to reach your standard.