Typical security contests focus on breaking or mitigating the impact of buggy systems. We present the Build-it Break-it Fix-it BIBIFI contest which aims to assess the ability to securely build software not just break it. In BIBIFI teams build specified software with the goal of maximizing correctness performance and security. The latter is tested when teams attempt to break other teams submissions. Winners are chosen from among the best builders and the best breakers. BIBIFI was designed to be open-ended - teams can use any language tool process etc. that they like. As such contest outcomes shed light on factors that correlate with successfully building secure software and breaking insecure software. During we ran three contests involving a total of teams and two different programming problems. Quantitative analysis from these contests found that the most efficient build-it submissions used CC but submissions coded in a statically-typed language were less likely to have a security flaw build-it teams with diverse programming-language knowledge also produced more secure code. Shorter programs correlated with better scores. Break-it teams that were also build-it teams were significantly better at finding security bugs.