Anonymous UserR&D Director at a computer software company
Anonymous UserSolution Manager at a computer software company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle."
"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."
"I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code."
"We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes."
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"The automated approach to these repetitive discovery attempts would take days to do manually and therefore it helps reduce the time needed to do an assessment."
"The vulnerability scanning option for analyzing the security loopholes on the websites is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Our developers can run the attacks directly from their environments, desktops."
"It can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated with other applications, which makes it a very versatile solution to have."
"For us, the most valuable aspect of the solution is the log-sequence feature."
"The scalability is good. The scalability is more than good because it can operate both as a standalone and it can be integrated as part of applications. So that really makes it a very, very versatile solution to have."
"Picks up weaknesses in our app setups."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete."
"Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems."
"Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis."
"I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages."
"Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them."
"One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk"
"I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."
"One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive."
"It would be nice to have a feature to "retest" only a single vulnerability that the customer reports as patched, and delete it from the next scans since it has already been patched."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the way the licensing model is currently is not very convenient for us because initially, when we bought it, the licensing model was very flexible, but now it restricts us."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"When monitoring the traffic we always have issues with the bandwidth consumption and the throttling of traffic."
"The solution limits the number of scans. It would be much better if we could have unlimited scans."
"We want to see how much bandwidth usage it consumes. When we monitor traffic we have issues with the consumption and throttling of the traffic."
"Currently only supports web scanning."
"There is room for improvement in website authentication because I've seen other products that can do it much better."
"The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers."
"It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey."
"For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization."
"I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good."
"Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing."
"If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
"We use this product per project rather than per developer... Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive."
"All things considered, I think it has a good price/value ratio."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."
"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."
"We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
"It's relatively expensive."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects.
Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner is an automated web application security testing tool that audits your web applications by checking for vulnerabilities like SQL Injection, Cross site scripting, and other exploitable vulnerabilities.
Checkmarx CxSAST is a highly accurate and flexible Static Code Analysis product that allows organizations to automatically scan un-compiled / un-built code and identify hundreds of security vulnerabilities in all major coding languages. CxSAST is available as a standalone product and can be effectively integrated into the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) to streamline detection and remediation. CxSAST can be deployed on-premise in a private data center or hosted via a public cloud.
Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner is ranked 11th in Application Security with 12 reviews while Checkmarx is ranked 4th in Application Security with 19 reviews. Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner is rated 7.2, while Checkmarx is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner writes "We are getting notably fewer false positives than previously, but reporting output needs to be simplified". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Works well with Windows servers but no Linux support and takes too long to scan files". Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner is most compared with OWASP Zap, Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner, Fortify WebInspect, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and Tenable Nessus, whereas Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Coverity, Snyk and WhiteSource. See our Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner vs. Checkmarx report.
We monitor all Application 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.