We performed a comparison between GitHub Advanced Security 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."It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"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."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"Our overall security has improved. We are running fewer severities and vulnerabilities in our packages. We fixed a lot of the vulnerabilities that we didn't know were there."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing."
"The most effective feature in securing project dependencies stems from its ability to highlight security vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features include enriched information around the vulnerabilities for better triaging, in terms of the vulnerability layer origin and vulnerability tree."
"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."
"Our customers find container scans most valuable. They are always talking about it."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"Because Snyk has so many integrations and so many things it can do, it's hard to really understand all of them and to get that information to each team that needs it... If there were more self-service, perhaps tutorials or overviews for new teams or developers, so that they could click through and see things themselves, that would help."
"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"
"We use Bamboo for CI.CD, and we had problems integrating Snyk with it. Ultimately, we got the two solutions to work together, but it was difficult."
"The product is very expensive."
"The tool should provide more flexibility and guidance to help us fix the top vulnerabilities before we go into production."
"The solution's integration with JFrog Artifactory could be improved."
"They were a couple of issues which happened because Snyk lacked some documentation on the integration side. Snyk is lacking a lot of documentation, and I would like to see them improve this. This is where we struggle a bit. For example, if something breaks, we can't figure out how to fix that issue. It may be a very simple thing, but because we don't have the proper documentation around an issue, it takes us a bit longer."
"Scalability has some issues because we have a lot of code and its use is mandatory. Therefore, it can be slow at times, especially because there are a lot of projects and reporting. Some UI improvements could help with this."
GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0, while Snyk is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx One and GitLab, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, Veracode and Checkmarx One. See our GitHub Advanced Security 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.