We performed a comparison between GitGuardian Platform and GitHub Advanced Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Some of our teams have hundreds of repositories, so filtering by team saves a lot of time and effort."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."
"The breadth of the solution detection capabilities is pretty good. They have good categories and a lot of different types of secrets... it gives us a great range when it comes to types of secrets, and that's good for us."
"I like GitGuardian's instant response. When you have an incident, it's reported immediately. The interface gives you a great overview of your current leaked secrets."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."
"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."
"Presently, we find the pre-commit hooks more useful."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"Other solutions have a live chat feature that provides instant results. Waiting for an agent to reply to an email is less ideal than an instant conversation with a support employee. That's a complaint so minor I almost hesitate to mention it."
"Right now, we are waiting for improvement in the RBAC support for GitGuardian."
"GitGuardian encompasses many secrets that companies might have, but we are a Microsoft-only organization, so there are some limitations there in terms of their honey tokens. I'd like for it to not be limited to Amazon-based tokens. It would be nice to see a broader set of providers that you could pick from."
"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."
"An area for improvement is the front end for incidents. The user experience in this area could be much better."
"There are some features that are lacking in GitGuardian. The more we grow and the more engineers we have, the more it will become difficult to assign an incident because the assignment is not automatic. I know they are working on that and we are waiting for it."
"I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing."
"We have encountered occasional difficulties with the Single Sign-On process."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
GitGuardian Platform is ranked 8th in Application Security Tools with 24 reviews while GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews. GitGuardian Platform is rated 9.0, while GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of GitGuardian Platform writes "It dramatically improved our ability to detect secrets, saved us time, and reduced our mean time to remediation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". GitGuardian Platform is most compared with SonarQube, Cycode, Snyk, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention and Veracode, whereas GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and Mend.io. See our GitGuardian Platform vs. GitHub Advanced Security report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.