Riley BlackSenior Security Analyst at a wellness & fitness company
Balaji SenthiappanAssistant Vice President at Hexaware Technologies Limited
Anonymous UserLead Software Architect at a tech services 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 OWASP's tool is free of cost, which gives it a great advantage, especially for smaller companies to make use of the tool."
"The reporting is quite intuitive, which gives you a clear indication of what kind of vulnerability you have that you can drill down on to gather more information."
"The scalability of this product is very good."
"Automatic updates and pull request analysis."
"Simple to use, good user interface."
"The interface is easy to use."
"The solution is good at reporting the vulnerabilities of the application."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
""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."
"There's very little documentation that comes with OWASP Zap."
"The automated vulnerability assessments that the application performs needs to be simplified as well as diversified."
"I'd like to see a kind of feature where we can just track what our last vulnerability was and how it has improved or not. More reports that can have some kind of base-lining, I think that would be a good feature too. I'm not sure whether it can be achieved and implement but I think that would really help."
"I prefer Burp Suite to SWASP Zap because of the extensive coverage it offers."
"Deployment is somewhat complicated."
"Too many false positives; test reports could be improved."
"The documentation needs to be improved because I had to learn everything from watching YouTube videos."
"It would be ideal if I could try some pre-built deployment scenarios so that I don't have to worry about whether the configuration sector team is doing it right or wrong. That would be very 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."
"OWASP Zap is free to use."
"This app is completely free and open source. So there is no question about any pricing."
"This is an open-source solution and can be used free of charge."
"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."
Anonymous UserSubdirector de Seguridad Informática e Infraestructura at a financial services firm
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.
Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP) is a free, open-source penetration testing tool being maintained under the umbrella of the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). ZAP is designed specifically for testing web applications and is both flexible and extensible.
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.
OWASP Zap is ranked 6th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 9 reviews while PortSwigger Burp is ranked 3rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 21 reviews. OWASP Zap is rated 7.4, while PortSwigger Burp is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OWASP Zap writes "Inexpensive licensing, free to use, and has good community support". 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". OWASP Zap is most compared with Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand and HCL AppScan, whereas PortSwigger Burp is most compared with Fortify WebInspect, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Qualys Web Application Scanning, HCL AppScan and Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner. See our OWASP Zap vs. PortSwigger Burp report.
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.