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."We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature."
"It's a great toolbox where the CI/CD pipeline is the fundamental component, but there are so many other features that you can pull from, which makes it a very powerful tool. My current client is using AWS, and they can, of course, use AWS CodePipeline, but GitLab is much more mature than that, and it also gives you the freedom to decide to go to another platform or have a multi-cloud strategy and things like that. That freedom for me is also very valuable."
"GitLab integrates well with other platforms."
"It is a speedy platform compared to the others I have used. I have also enjoyed using the platform as this solution offers a good user experience."
"We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions."
"GitLab is very useful for pipelines, continuous integration, and continuous deployment. It is also stable."
"The solution is stable."
"For us, Gitlab's most valuable feature is the integration with Cypress. We're using Cypress as an automation tool, so we're using GitLab as a tool for running in parallel."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"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."
"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."
"GitLab doesn't have AWS integration. It would be better to have integration with other container management environments beyond Kubernetes. It has very good integration with Kubernetes, but it doesn't have good integration with, for example, AWS, ETS, etc."
"GitLab's UI could be improved."
"The integration and storage capabilities could be better."
"There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents."
"GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff."
"For as long as I have used GitLab, I haven't encountered any major limitations. However, I think that perhaps the search functionality could be better."
"The initial setup was quite challenging because it takes some time to understand how to pull out or push the code."
"The solution could be faster."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
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, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube 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.
