Most Helpful Review
Researched SonarQube but chose Veracode: Our customers get the security of bug-free code, but raw file scans would help
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarQube vs. Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
390,810 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
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.
I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.
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.
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.
One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.
It has an easy-to-use interface.
Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.
It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.
The most valuable features are the dashboard reports and the ease of integrating it with Jenkins.
Strong code evaluation for budget-minded clients.
If code coverage is a low number then that's of great value to me.
SonarQube is good for checking and maintaining code quality.
Using SonarQube has helped us to identify areas of technical debt to work on, resulting in better code, fewer vulnerabilities, and fewer bugs.
We advise all of our developers to have this solution in place.
If you want to have your code scanned and timed then this is a good tool.
We have the software metrics that SonarQube gives us, which is something we did not have before. This helps us work towards aiming coding standards to empower us to move in the direction of better code quality. SonarQube provides targets and metrics for that.
The key feature for Nexus Lifecycle is the proprietary data they have on vulnerabilities. The way that they combine all the different sources and also their own research into one concise article that clearly explains what the problem is. Most of the time, and even if you do notice that you have a problem, the public information available is pretty weak. So, if we want to assess if a problem applies to our product, it's really hard. We need to invest a lot of time digging into the problem. This work is basically done by Sonatype for us. The data that it delivers helps us with fixing or understanding the issue a lot quicker than without it.
The data quality is really good. They've got some of the best in the industry as far as that is concerned. As a result, it helps us to resolve problems faster. The visibility of the data, as well as their features that allow us to query and search - and even use it in the development IDE - allow us to remediate and find things faster.
The grandfathering mode allows us to add legacy applications which we know we're not going to change or refactor for some time. New developments can be scanned separately and we can obviously resolve those vulnerabilities where there are new applications developed. The grandfathering is a good way to separate what can be factored now, versus long-term technical debt.
The dashboard is usable and gives us clear visibility into what is happening. It also has a very cool feature, which allows us to see the clean version available to be downloaded. Therefore, it is very easy to go and trace which version of the component does not have any issues. The dashboard can be practical, as well. It can wave a particular version of a Java file or component. It can even grandfather certain components, because in a real world scenarios we cannot always take the time to go and update something because it's not backward compatible. Having these features make it a lot easier to use and more practical. It allows us to apply the security, without having an all or nothing approach.
The way we can define policies and apply those policies selectively across the different applications is valuable. We can define a separate policy for public-facing applications and a separate policy for the internal applications. That is cool.
The application onboarding and policy grandfathering features are good and the solution integrates well with our existing DevOps tools.
It scans and gives you a low false-positive count... The reason we picked Lifecycle over the other products is, while the other products were flagging stuff too, they were flagging things that were incorrect. Nexus has low false-positive results, which give us a high confidence factor.
What's really nice about that is it shows a graph of all the versions for that particular component, and it marks out the ones that have a vulnerability and the ones that don't have a vulnerability.
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.
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.
I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.
Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis.
We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.
Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives.
The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.
It needs more timely support for newer languages and framework versions.
Although it has Sonar built into it, it is still lacking. Customization features of identifying a particular attack still need to be worked on. To give you an example: if we want to scan and do a false positive analysis, those types of features are missing. If we want to rescan something from a particular point that is a feature that is also missing. It’s in our queue. That will hopefully save a lot of time.
Expression of common vulnerabilities and exposures is not always current.
I don't believe you can have metrics of code quality based upon code analysis. I don't think it's possible for a computer to do it.
I would like to see more options for security, beyond the basics like SQL injection.
The solution is a bit lacking on the security side, in terms of finding and identifying vulnerabilities.
I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software.
The reporting is good, but I am not able to download a specific report as a PDF, so downloading reports is something that should be looked at.
We've been using the Community Edition, which means that we get to use it at our leisure, and they're kind enough to literally give it to us. However, it takes a fair amount of effort to figure out how to get everything up and running. Since we didn't go with the professional paid version, we're not entitled to support. Of course that could be self-correcting if we were to make the step to buy into this and really use it. Then their technical support would be available to us to make strides for using it better.
The GUI is simple, so it's easy to use. It started as great to use, but for larger scale companies, it also comes with some limitations. This is why we tried to move to more of an API approach. So, the GUI could use some improvements potentially.
As far as the relationship of, and ease of finding the relationships between, libraries and applications across the whole enterprise goes, it still does that. They could make that a little smoother, although right now it's still pretty good.
If they had a more comprehensive online tutorial base, both for admin and developers, that would help. It would be good if they actually ran through some scenarios, regarding what happens if I do pick up a vulnerability. How do I fork out into the various decisions? If the vulnerability is not of a severe nature, can I just go ahead with it until it becomes severe? This is important because, obviously, business demands certain deliverables to be ready at a certain time.
We use Griddle a lot for integrating into our local builds with the IDE, which is another built system. There is not a lot of support for it nor published modules that can be readily used. So, we had to create our own. No Griddle plugins have been released.
Since Nexus Repository just keeps on adding the .jar artifacts whenever there is a build, whenever an application is going up, there is always a space issue on the server. That is one of the things that we are looking for Nexus to notify us about: if it is running out of space.
The biggest thing is getting it put uniformly across all the different teams. It's more of a process issue. The process needs to be thought out about how it's going to be used, what kind of training there will be, how it's going to be socialized, and how it's going to be rolled out and controlled, enterprise-wide. That's probably more of a challenge than the technology itself.
We created the Wiki page for each team showing an overview of their outstanding security issues because the Lifecycle reporting interface isn't as intuitive. It is good for people on my team who use it quite often. But for a tech engineer who doesn't interact with it regularly, it's quite confusing.
Another feature they could use is more languages. Sonatype has been mainly a Java shop because they look after Maven Central... But we've slowly been branching out to different languages. They don't cover all of them, and those that they do cover are not as in-depth as we would like them to be.
Pricing and Cost Advice
They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.
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.
Veracode has been fair. We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.
No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.
It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.
I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms.
Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.
I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.
A low cost long-term solution for non-critical situations.
We are using the free, unlicensed version.
The costs for this application, for the kind of job it does, are pretty decent.
We're using their free Community Edition version.
Some of the plugins that were previously free are not free now.
The price point on SonarQube is good.
The price is good. We certainly get a lot more in return. However, it's also hard to get the funds to roll out such a product for the entire firm. Therefore, pricing has been a limiting factor for us. However, it's a fair price.
Pricing is decent. It's not horrible. It's middle-of-the-road, as far as our ranking goes. They're a little bit more but that's also because they provide more.
Pricing is comparable with some of the other products. We are happy with the pricing.
We're pretty happy with the price, for what it is delivering for us and the value we're getting from it.
Its pricing is competitive within the market. It's not very cheap, it's not very expensive.
Compared 49% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 29% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 33% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Also Known As
Veracode is an application security company that offers an automated cloud-based service for securing web, mobile and third-party enterprise applications. Veracode provides multiple security analysis technologies on a single platform, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, mobile application behavioral analysis and software composition analysis.
|SonarQube is the central place to manage code quality, offering visual reporting on and across projects and enabling to replay the past to follow metrics evolution|
Nexus Lifecycle gives you full control over your software supply chain and allows you to define rules, actions, and policies that work best for your organization and teams.
Keep your software secure
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Learn more about SonarQube
Learn more about Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle
|State of Missouri, Rekner||Bank of America, Siemens, Cognizant, Thales, Cisco, eBay||Genome.One, Blackboard, Crediterform, Crosskey, Intuit, Progress Software, Qualys, Liberty Mutual Insurance|
Financial Services Firm32%
Software R&D Company39%
Comms Service Provider11%
Financial Services Firm8%
Financial Services Firm36%
Software R&D Company7%
Software R&D Company36%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm8%
Financial Services Firm60%
Software R&D Company31%
Financial Services Firm14%
Comms Service Provider9%