We performed a comparison between Spirent CyberFlood and Veracode 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."The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"It has improved the quality of code being delivered for test and its vulnerability resolutions timeline has improved."
"For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE."
"I don't have much experience with the solution yet. We're looking at integrating Manual Penetration Testing with JIRA and Bamboo and then building that into a CICD model, so the integration is the most valuable feature so far."
"This static analysis helps ensure a secure application rollout across all environments."
"The main feature, and one of the most important, is the static code analysis. We are able to complete an analysis of the security flaws with this platform. It's very good at helping us find and fix flaws."
"The most valuable feature is detecting security vulnerabilities in the project."
"It's good at identifying security issues. It can pinpoint issues very effectively."
"Veracode enables us to build a strong data security layer in our platforms. We can increase customer confidence in data security. Some PCI/HIPAA compliance issues were impossible to resolve without Veracode."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"Veracode's SAST, DAST, and SCA are pretty good with respect to industry standards, but with regard to container security, they are in either beta or alpha testing. They need to get that particular feature up and running so that they take care of the container security part."
"Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement."
"There needs to be better API integration to the development team's pipeline, which is something that is missing and needs to be improved."
"Veracode should include the feature to run multiple scales at a time."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"The current version of the application does not support testing for API."
"The technical support service has room for improvement."
"I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing."
Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Spirent CyberFlood vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
