We performed a comparison between Snyk and Veracode based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Snyk comes out ahead of Veracode. Veracode has a higher cost and the Static and SAST scans may not be as user-friendly to developers.
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"The cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"There's real-time threat detection. It can show threats and find issues based on their severity and helps us with real-time monitoring."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"We have integrated it into our software development environment. We have it in a couple different spots. Developers can use it at the point when they are developing. They can test it on their local machine. If the setup that they have is producing alerts or if they need to upgrade or patch, then at the testing phase when a product is being built for automated testing integrates with Snyk at that point and also produces some checks."
"We use Snyk to check vulnerabilities and rectify potential leaks in GitHub."
"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."
"It is easy for developers to use. The documentation is clear as well as the APIs are good and easily readable. It's a good solution overall."
"It has a nice dashboard where I can see all the vulnerabilities and risks that they provided. I can also see the category of any risk, such as medium, high, and low. They provide the input priority-wise. The team can target the highest one first, and then they can go to medium and low ones."
"There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best."
"I am impressed with the product's security vulnerability detection. My peers in security are praising the tool for its accuracy to detect security vulnerabilities. The product is very easy to onboard. It doesn't require a lot of preparation or prerequisites. It's a bit of a plug-and-play as long as you're using a package manager or for example, you are using a GitHub repository. And that is an advantage for this tool because developers don't want to add more tools to what they're currently using."
"It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now."
"Tech support is outstanding. Best in class. Absolutely. They bend over backwards to help us. We'll come up with questions and within minutes, we'll get answers. It's amazing. It's truly amazing."
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"It changes the DevSecOps process because we find flaws much earlier in the development life cycle, and we also spot third-party software that we don't allow on developers' machines."
"The integration of static testing with our Azure DevOps CI pipeline was easy."
"The coverage of backdoors attacks on security that's the most valuable for my clients."
"The integration with DevOps pipelines is seamless."
"The SAST and DAST modules are great."
"It is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"Maybe container runtime security could be improved."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"The integration with Oracle has room for improvement."
"In terms of ease of use, initially, it is a bit confusing to navigate around, but once you get used to it, it becomes easier."
"It would be great if they can include dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning features. Checkmarx and Veracode provide dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning, but Snyk doesn't do that. That's the reason there is more inclination towards Veracode, Checkmarx, or AppScan. These are a few tools available in the market that do all four types of scanning: static, dynamic, interactive, and run-time."
"There is always more work to do around managing the volume of information when you've got thousands of vulnerabilities. Trying to get those down to zero is virtually impossible, either through ignoring them all or through fixing them. That filtering or information management is always going to be something that can be improved."
"All such tools should definitely improve the signatures in their database. Snyk is pretty new to the industry. They have a pretty good knowledge base, but Veracode is on top because Veracode has been in this business for a pretty long time. They do have a pretty large database of all the findings, and the way that the correlation engine works is superb. Snyk is also pretty good, but it is not as good as Veracode in terms of maintaining a large space of all the historical data of vulnerabilities."
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done."
"It lists projects. So, if you have a number of microservices in an enterprise, then you could have pages of findings. Developers will then spend zero time going through the pages of reports to figure out, "Is there something I need to fix?" While it may make sense to list all the projects and issues in these very long lists for completeness, Snyk could do a better job of bubbling up and grouping items, e.g., a higher level dashboard that draws attention to things that are new, the highest priority things, or things trending in the wrong direction. That would make it a lot easier. They don't quite have that yet in container security."
"The product is very expensive."
"I think Snyk should add more of a vulnerability protection feature in the tool since it is an area where it lacks."
"I would like to see more AI features. It's a current subject because with ChatGPT and other solutions being developed all the time, IT attacks will increase... To defend against those it's very important that the good guys use AI in ways that are good instead of bad."
"Veracode is costly, and there is potential for improvement in its pricing."
"If the dynamic scan is improved, then the speed might go up. That is somehow not happening. We have raised this concern. It might also help if they could time limit scans to 24 hours instead of letting them go for three days. Then, whatever results could be shared, even if the scan is not complete, that would definitely help us."
"Sometimes, I get feedback from a developer saying, "They are scanning a Python code, but getting feedback around Java code." While the remediation and guidelines are there, improvement is still required, e.g., you won't get the exact guidelines, but you can get some sort of a high-level insights."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"The solution does take a bit more time when we use it for multiple processes."
"The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity."
"There are certain shortcomings in Veracode's static analysis engine. I would improve Veracode's static analysis engine to make it capable of identifying vulnerabilities with low false positives."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Snyk is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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 ". Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Checkmarx One, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and OWASP Zap. See our Snyk vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors, best Container Security vendors, and best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.
