We performed a comparison between GitLab and Polyspace Code Prover 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."Their CI/CD engine is very mature. It's very comprehensive and flexible, and compared to other projects, I believe that GitLab is number one right now from that perspective."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"The most valuable functionality of GitLab, for me, is the DevOps. Besides the normal source control based on Git, I find the Auto DevOps features most important in the solution."
"The stability is good."
"We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions."
"I have found the most valuable features of GitLab are the GitClone, GitPush, GitPull, GitMatch, GitMit, GitCommit, and GitStatus."
"For us, Gitlab's most valuable feature is the integration with Cypress. We're using Cypress as an automation tool, so we're using GitLab as a tool for running in parallel."
"GitLab is very useful for pipelines, continuous integration, and continuous deployment. It is also stable."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"It could have more security integrations and the ability to check the vulnerability of the code. I don't think it is a responsibility of Gitlab, but it would be nice to have more options to integrate with."
"GitLab would be improved with the addition of templates for deployment on local PCs."
"I would like configuration of a YML file to be done via UI rather than a code file."
"We'd always like to see better pricing on the product."
"I've noticed an area for improvement in GitLab, particularly needing to go through many steps to push the code to the repository. Resolving that issue would make the product better. My team quickly fixed it by writing a small script, then double-clicking or enabling the script to take care of the issue. However, that quick fix was from my team and not the GitLab team, so in the next release, if an automatic deployment feature would be available in GitLab, then that would be good because, in Visual Studio, you can do that with just one click of a button."
"The price of GitLab could improve, it is high."
"Their RBAC is role-based access, which is fine but not very good."
"I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
GitLab is ranked 6th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, SonarQube, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Veracode. See our GitLab vs. Polyspace Code Prover 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.
