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."This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it."
"The solution's most valuable feature is that it is compatible with GitHub. The product's integration capabilities are sufficient for our small company of 35 people."
"GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment."
"The most important features of GitLab for us are issue management and all the CI/CD tools. Another aspect that I love about GitLab is the UI."
"The solution makes the CI/CD pipelines easy to execute."
"GitLab is very well-organized and easy to use. Also, it offers most features that customers need."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"The solution has an established roadmap that lays out its plans for upgrades over the next two to three years."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"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."
"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 is a very user-friendly tool."
"The integration and storage capabilities could be better."
"GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."
"The documentation is confusing."
"The solution could be faster."
"GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff."
"There was a problem with the build environment when we were looking at developing iOS applications. iOS build require Mac machines and there are no Mac machines provided by GitLab in their cloud. So to build for mobile iOS application, we needed to use our own Mac machine within our own infrastructure. If GitLab were to provide a feature such that an iOS application could also be built through GitLab directly, that would be great."
"I don't really like the new Kubernetes integration because it is pretty focused on the on-premise environment, but we're in a hybrid environment."
"As a partner, sometimes it's difficult to get support. They have a really complicated procedure for their support."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
GitLab is ranked 7th 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, Bamboo, SonarQube, 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.
