We performed a comparison between Sysdig Secure and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"PingSafe stands out for its user-friendly interface and intuitive software, making it easy to navigate and use."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"The most valuable aspects of PingSafe are its alerting system and the remediation guidance it provides."
"The tool identifies issues quickly."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"The tool has the capability to conduct scans initially. It can perform scans on your virtual machines, physical machines, containers, and container images. A standout feature is its ability to scan offline container images stored in your container registry. Additionally, it can scan runtime images in your cluster or on your host machine. This allows for the detection of vulnerabilities in running containers, including loaded libraries. Notably, the tool can identify which library vulnerabilities are already present in your system. An added advantage is its capacity to take action beyond threat detection. It has the ability to block access and respond to encountered threats."
"The proactiveness of the support has been fantastic. Every time we mention something in a meeting that we're trying to do, he proactively takes that as an investigation topic and looks into it. He'll provide the solution even though we might not have asked him to investigate it."
"We appreciate this feature, especially when combined with CD monitoring. The implementation of requested features has been remarkable, such as scanning for compliance in CRM processes for the US government. We heavily rely on this feature to assess compliance with federal requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the level of support that we get. Our solutions or customer success representative is very valuable. I see them as an extension of our security team."
"From a container-based standpoint, it offers excellent scalability to its users...I would tell those planning to use the solution that, from a container standpoint, it's excellent."
"I see Sysdig as the most comprehensive solution in comparison to its competitors."
"Sysdig Secure has many strong foundational features like compliance and benchmark, security, network access management, and vulnerability management."
"The log monitor is the most valuable feature."
"I can have quick results by just uploading compiled components."
"The pricing is worth it."
"The coverage of backdoors attacks on security that's the most valuable for my clients."
"All the features provided by Veracode are valuable, including static scan, dynamic scan, and MPT (Manual Penetration Testing)."
"Veracode is very easy to use."
"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."
"I like Veracode's ease of integration with various cloud platforms and tools."
"The solution is stable. we've never had any issues surrounding its stability."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"PingSafe's current documentation could be improved to better assist customers during the cluster onboarding process."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"There was a security concern related to a specific feature. While the feature itself was promising, it posed a challenge. The situation revolved around code scanning. If your source code is hosted within your own premises, say on Bitbucket, you naturally wouldn't want your code to be accessible to external parties beyond your company. Keeping your code base private is a standard practice. However, in the case of code scanning using Sysdig Secure, they copy your code to their SaaS platform. This posed an issue for us. When we inquired about this, their response acknowledged the concern. In an upcoming release, they plan to enable code scanning within your on-premises environment through the assistance of an agent. This change is already in progress. While this tool stands out compared to existing solutions in the market, it's important to note that there are still some limitations to consider. Another drawback we encountered relates to our expertise with Kubernetes. The tool can monitor Kubernetes audit logs, triggering alerts and notifications. However, it falls short in terms of taking direct action based on these alerts. There are different methods of event capture, including through system labels and system calls, as well as via Kubernetes audit events. Notably, at the system level, Sysdig Secure can both detect and respond to events, allowing actions like blocking and warning. This proactive approach is effective at the system call level. However, when it comes to monitoring Kubernetes audit events, Sysdig Secure can only notify without being able to execute any further actions. It can't block access or containers. The vendor likened their role to that of a monitoring camera, observing events and sending notifications without the capacity to intervene. This limitation applies to Kubernetes audit events. Given that everything operates within our system, there is a workaround available: configuring system-level policies to block containers as necessary."
"Reporting can definitely be better. Live dashboards should be configurable for a longer period of time rather than 30 days. Being able to go back in time to compare six months ago to today would be valuable."
"Sysdig's biggest weakness is dashboarding and reporting. You have access to the data and can get everything you need, but we need the ability to summarize the information quickly in a format that senior leaders can understand. We report to the executive level and global board. I need to roll all that in-depth information into a quick summary, and their maturity level isn't there. I'm seeing that on the future road map, but it isn't there now."
"The dashboard could be more simple and show the more important issues that are detected first. We'd like to be able to set it up so more important issues show up more prominently in the dashboard."
"Banks and financial institutions cannot use Sysdig Secure because it doesn't sell SaaS-hosted versions for under two hundred working nodes."
"The solution needs to improve overall from a CSPM standpoint since they can't compete with Wiz or Orca."
"They should make it specific with a couple of features only."
"Perhaps, it could support more custom implementations, as our company utilizes custom implementations rather than standard ones. Configuring it requires a deep understanding and adjustment to our specific needs, which took some time. Other than that, I'm unsure about potential improvements. We were considering the possibility of compartmentalizing their tools. Currently, in Sysdig Secure, they bundle multiple features, and we are unable to use them individually. For instance, if we only need compliance scanning, we have to deploy the entire secure package. This is because of the way their agent functions, but I can't delve into more details."
"It would help if there were a training module that would explain how to more effectively integrate the SAST product into the build tool, Jenkins or Bamboo."
"We have some constraints interacting with Veracode self-support. I'm not talking about their technical support. I'm talking about self-support. We sometimes have a hard time communicating with them."
"The only notable problem we have had is that when new versions of Swift have come out, we have found Veracode tends to be a bit behind in updates to support the new language changes."
"To be able to upload source codes without being compiled. That’s one feature that drives us to see other sources."
"I'd like to see an improved component of it work in a DevOps world, where the scanning speed does not impede progress along the AppSec pipeline."
"Searching for applications in Veracode is a little bit difficult. We have to minimize the length of an application's name to 47 characters. It would be good if this limit could be increased so that an application's name can be properly reflected in Veracode."
"I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"The area with the most room for improvement is the speed and responsiveness of the query, as it is usually very slow."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Sysdig Secure is ranked 17th in Container Security with 9 reviews while Veracode is ranked 4th in Container Security with 194 reviews. Sysdig Secure is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Sysdig Secure writes "A security scanning tool with great insight on your workloads running anywhere". 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 ". Sysdig Secure is most compared with Wiz, Sysdig Falco, Aqua Cloud Security Platform and SUSE NeuVector, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Sysdig Secure vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.