Anonymous UserR&D Director at a computer software company
Fernando CarlosProject Manager at Everis
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 solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"This product is top-notch solution and the technology is the best on the market."
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good."
"The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices. Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much."
""The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.""
"This tool is more accurate than the other solutions that we use, and reports fewer false positives."
"This solution has helped a lot in finding bugs and vulnerabilities, and the scanner is good enough for simple web apps."
"Some of the extensions, available using Burp Extender, are also very good and we have found issues by using them."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding."
"Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"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."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood."
"The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"The Initial setup is a bit complex."
"There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual."
"The scanner and crawler need to be improved."
"I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory."
"The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"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."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"It is cost-effective."
"Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"The cost is approximately $500 for a single license, and there are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees."
"Our licensing cost is approximately $400 USD per year."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"At $400 or $500 per license paid annually, it is a very cheap tool."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
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.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand’s application security-as-a-service is the easy and flexible way to identify vulnerabilities in your applications without additional investment in software or personnel. Allow our global team to work for you, providing support and technical expertise 24/7.
Burp Suite is an integrated platform for performing security testing of web applications. Its various tools work seamlessly together to support the entire testing process, from initial mapping and analysis of an application's attack surface, through to finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is ranked 7th in Application Security with 13 reviews while PortSwigger Burp is ranked 6th in Application Security with 21 reviews. Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is rated 7.8, while PortSwigger Burp is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand writes "Detects vulnerabilities and provides useful suggestions, but doesn't understand complex websites". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp writes "Great design, excellent features like Intruder, Repeater, Decoder with plenty of plug-ins from community forums". Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, whereas PortSwigger Burp is most compared with OWASP Zap, Fortify WebInspect, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Qualys Web Application Scanning and w3af. See our Micro Focus Fortify on Demand vs. PortSwigger Burp 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.