We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market."
"It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent."
"I think that we pay approximately $100 USD per month."
"The price is okay."
"It seems reasonable. Our IT team manages the licenses."
"Its price is fine. It is on the cheaper side and not expensive. You have to pay additionally for GitLab CI/CD minutes. Initially, we used the free version. When we ran out of GitLab minutes, we migrated to the paid version."
"It is very expensive. We can't bear it now, and we have to find another solution. We have a yearly subscription in which we can increase the number of licenses, but we have to pay at the end of the year."
Earn 20 points
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.
GitLab is a single application with features for the whole software development and operations (DevOps) lifecycle.
NexPloit is the world's first AI-powered Application Security Testing solution, generating its own attacks, automating the discovery of your application's zero-day vulnerabilities and Business Logic Flaws.
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
GitLab is ranked 5th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 15 reviews while NexPloit is ranked 32nd in Application Security Testing (AST). GitLab is rated 8.2, while NexPloit is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Provides or mandates quantitative code into the Master". On the other hand, GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Tekton, TeamCity, Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle and Black Duck, whereas NexPloit is most compared with NexDast.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.