We performed a comparison between Polyspace Code Prover and Snyk 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."Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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."
"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."
"We use Snyk to check vulnerabilities and rectify potential leaks in GitHub."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the software composition analysis."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We're loving some of the Kubernetes integration as well. That's really quite cool. It's still in the early days of our use of it, but it looks really exciting. In the Kubernetes world, it's very good at reporting on the areas around the configuration of your platform, rather than the things that you've pulled in. There's some good advice there that allows you to prioritize whether something is important or just worrying. That's very helpful."
"From the software composition analysis perspective, it first makes sure that we understand what is happening from a third-party perspective for the particular product that we use. This is very difficult when you are building software and incorporating dependencies from other libraries, because those dependencies have dependencies and that chain of dependencies can go pretty deep. There could be a vulnerability in something that is seven layers deep, and it would be very difficult to understand that is even affecting us. Therefore, Snyk provides fantastic visibility to know, "Yes, we have a problem. Here is where it ultimately comes from." It may not be with what we're incorporating, but something much deeper than that."
"Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue."
"The most effective feature in securing project dependencies stems from its ability to highlight security vulnerabilities."
"Snyk is a developer-friendly product."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Snyk's API and UI features could work better in terms of speed."
"We have seen cases where tools didn't find or recognize certain dependencies. These are known issues, to some extent, due to the complexity in the language or stack that you using. There are some certain circumstances where the tool isn't actually finding what it's supposed to be finding, then it could be misleading."
"The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improve"
"I think Snyk should add more of a vulnerability protection feature in the tool since it is an area where it lacks."
"There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform."
"The tool's initial use is complex."
"Offering API access in the lower or free open-source tiers would be better. That would help our customers. If you don't have an enterprise plan, it becomes challenging to integrate with the rest of the systems. Our customers would like to have some open-source integrations in the next release."
"The tool needs improvement in license compliance. I would like to see the integration of better policy management in the product's future release. When it comes to the organization that I work for, there are a lot of business units since we are a group of companies. Each of these companies has its specific requirements and its own appetite for risk. This should be able to reflect in flexible policies. We need to be able to configure policies that can be adjusted later or overridden by the business unit that is using the product."
Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6, while Snyk is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Polyspace Code Prover vs. Snyk 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.
