We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Another feature of Veracode is that they provide e-learning, but the e-learning is not basic, rather it is quite advanced... in the e-learning you can check into best practices for developing code and how to prevent improper management of some component of the code that could lead to a vulnerability. The e-learning that Veracode provides is an extremely good tool."
"In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"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."
"The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months."
"The visibility into application status helps reduce risk exposure for our software. Today, any findings provided by the DAST are reviewed by the developers and we have internal processes in place to correct those findings before there can be a release. So it absolutely does prevent us from releasing weak code."
"The main feature that I have found valuable is the solution's ability to find issues in static analysis. Additionally, there are plenty of useful tools."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"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."
"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."
"Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue."
"The most valuable features are their GitLab and JIRA integrations. The GitLab integration lets us pull projects in pretty easily, so that it's pretty minimal for developers to get it set up. Using the JIRA integration, it's also pretty easy to get the information that is generated, as a result of that GitLab integration, back to our teams in a non-intrusive way and in a workflow that we are already using."
"Snyk is a developer-friendly product."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that they add a lot of their own information to the vulnerabilities. They describe vulnerabilities and suggest their own mitigations or version upgrades. The information was the winning factor when we compared Snyk to others. This is what gave it more impact."
"It's very easy for developers to use. Onboarding was an easy process for all of the developers within the company. After a quick, half-an-hour to an hour session, they were fully using it on their own. It's very straightforward. Usability is definitely a 10 out of 10."
"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."
"If Veracode was more diversified, as far as the number of platforms and the number of applications it could do in our favor, we would be using it even more. But there are a number of platforms it doesn't support. For example, I know they support C+, .NET, and Java, but there are certain platforms they don't support and that was disappointing."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"Veracode has plenty of data. The problem is the information on the dashboards of Veracode, as the user interface is not great. It's not immediately usable. Most of the time, the best way to use it is to just create issues and put them in JIRA... But if I were a startup, and only had products with a good user interface, I wouldn't use Veracode because the UI is very dated."
"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 ask Veracode to be a lot more engaged with the customer and set up live sessions where they force the customer to engage with Veracode's technical team. Veracode could show them a repo, how they should do things, this is what these results mean, here is a dashboard, here's the interpretation, here's where you find the results."
"Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access."
"There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"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."
"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."
"Micro-services need to be included in the next release."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform."
"Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better."
"Could include other types of security scanning and statistical analysis"
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"A feature we would like to see is the ability to archive and store historical data, without actually deleting it. It's a problem because it throws my numbers off. When I'm looking at the dashboard's current vulnerabilities, it's not accurate."
"We've also had technical issues with blocking newly introduced vulnerabilities in PRs and that was creating a lot of extra work for developers in trying to close and reopen the PR to get rid of some areas. We ended up having to disable that feature altogether because it wasn't really working for us and it was actually slowing down developer velocity."
"We tried to integrate it into our software development environment but it went really badly. It took a lot of time and prevented the developers from using the IDE. Eventually, we didn't use it in the development area... I would like to see better integrations to help the developers get along better with the tool. And the plugin for the IDE is not so good. This is something we would like to have..."
"Compatibility with other products would be great."
"Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market."
"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."
"From a cost perspective, it seems okay, although we will probably evaluate alternatives next time it's up for renewal because for us, it's a relatively high cost, and we want to make sure that we are using our resources most appropriately."
"The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license."
"It's relatively expensive."
"It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing."
"The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost."
"This solution is expensive. The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time."
"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."
"Most of my customers opted for a perpetual license. They prefer to pay the highest amount up front for the perpetual license and then pay for additional support annually."
"With Snyk, you get what you pay for. It is not a cheap solution, but you get a comprehensiveness and level of coverage that is very good. The dollars in the security budget only go so far. If I can maximize my value and be able to have some funds left over for other initiatives, I want to do that. That is what drives me to continue to say, "What's out there in the market? Snyk's expensive, but it's good. Is there something as good, but more affordable?" Ultimately, I find we could go cheaper, but we would lose the completeness of vision or scope. I am not willing to do that because Snyk does provide a pretty important benefit for us."
"Their licensing model is fairly robust and scalable for our needs. I believe we have reached a reasonable agreement on the licensing to enable hundreds of developers to participate in this product offering. The solution is very tailored towards developers and its licensing model works well for us."
"It's good value. That's the primary thing. It's not cheap-cheap, but it's good value."
"The price is good. Snyk had a good price compared to the competition, who had higher pricing than them. Also, their licensing and billing are clear."
"It's inexpensive and easy to license. It comes in standard package sizing, which is straightforward. This information is publicly found on their website."
"Pricing-wise, it is not expensive as compared to other tools. If you have a couple of licenses, you can scan a certain number of projects. It just needs to be attached to them."
"Snyk is a premium-priced product, so it's kind of expensive. The big con that I find frustrating is when a company charges extra for single sign-on (SSO) into their SaaS app. Snyk is one of the few that I'm willing to pay that add-on charge, but generally I disqualify products that charge an extra fee to do integrated authentication to our identity provider, like Okta or some other SSO. That is a big negative. We had to pay extra for that. That little annoyance aside, it is expensive. You get a lot out of it, but you're paying for that premium."
"We do have some missing licenses issues, especially with non-SPDX compliant one, but we expect this to be fixed soon"
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.
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.
Snyk’s mission is to help developers use open source code and stay secure. The use of open source is booming, but security is a key concern (https://snyk.io/stateofossecurity/). Snyk’s unique developer focused product enables developers and enterprise security to continuously find & fix vulnerable dependencies without slowing down, with seamless integration into Dev & DevOps workflows. Snyk is adopted by over 100,000 developers, has multiple enterprise customers (such as Google, New Relic, ASOS and others) and is experiencing rapid growth. Our investors are Canaan Partners, BOLDStart, and several successful developer tools entrepreneurs. Snyk was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in London with offices in Israel and the US. For more information, go to https://snyk.io/.
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Checkmarx is ranked 6th in Application Security with 18 reviews while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security with 19 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.8, while Snyk is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Easy interface that is user friendly, quick scanning, and good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Helps Avoid The Pain And The Cost Of Trying To Retrofit Security in your Code". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Coverity, WhiteSource and OWASP Zap, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, WhiteSource, Black Duck, Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle and JFrog Xray. See our Checkmarx vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best Application Security vendors.
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.