We performed a comparison between Sonatype Lifecycle and Veracode 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."Automating the Jenkins plugins and the build title is a big plus."
"It was very easy to integrate into our build pipeline, with Jenkins and Nexus Repository as the central product."
"It's helped us free up staff time."
"We really like the Nexus Firewall. There are increasing threats from npm, rogue components, and we've been able to leverage protection there. We also really like being able to know which of our apps has known vulnerabilities."
"The report part is quite easy to read. The report part is very important to us because that is how we communicate to our security officer and the security committee. Therefore, we need to have a complete report that we can generate and pass onto them for review."
"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 integration of Lifecycle is really good with Jenkins and GitHub; those work very well. We've been able to get it to work seamlessly with them so that it runs on every build that we have."
"Lifecycle lets developers see any vulnerabilities or AGPL license issues associated with code in the early stages of development. The nice thing is that it's built into the ID so that they can see all versions of a specific code."
"What I found most valuable in Veracode Static Analysis is that it categorizes security vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the static scan that checks for security issues."
"We use it to get our scan results and see where our software is vulnerable or not vulnerable."
"With the pipeline scanner, it's easier for developers to scan their products, as they don't have to export anything from their computers. They can do everything with the command line on their computer."
"The findings of their security analysis are wonderful. You can easily go through all the analyses done by Veracode. You can see what are the flaws and what could be the best possible resolution to minimize those flaws in the application. When an application is being used by the public, security is a challenge. Veracode helps us to analyze all the security flaws, discrepancies, and vulnerabilities inside the application. It provides good reports."
"Within SCA, there is an extremely valuable feature called vulnerable methods. It is able to determine within a vulnerable library which methods are vulnerable. That is very valuable, because in the vast majority of cases where a library is vulnerable, none of the vulnerable methods are actually used by the code. So, if we want to prioritize the way open source libraries are updated when a library is found vulnerable, then we want to prioritize the libraries which have vulnerable methods used within the code."
"The visibility into application status helps reduce risk exposure for our software. Today, any findings provided by the DAST are reviewed by the developers and we have internal processes in place to correct those findings before there can be a release. So it absolutely does prevent us from releasing weak code."
"The integration of static testing with our Azure DevOps CI pipeline was easy."
"Not all languages are supported in Fortify."
"They're working on the high-quality data with Conan. For Conan applications, when it was first deployed to Nexus IQ, it would scan one file type for dependencies. We don't use that method in Conan, we use another file type, which is an acceptable method in Conan, and they didn't have support for that other file type. I think they didn't even know about it because they aren't super familiar with Conan yet. I informed them that there's this other file type that they could scan for dependencies, and that's what they added functionality for."
"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."
"The user interface needs to be improved. It is slow for us. We use Nexus IQ mostly via APIs. We don't use the interface that much, but when we use it, certain areas are just unresponsive or very slow to load. So, performance-wise, the UI is not fast enough for us, but we don't use it that much anyway."
"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."
"We had some issues, and I think we might still have some issues, where the Sonatype Nexus Repository has integrations with IQ and SonarQube. We're getting some errors on the UI, so we've had Sonatype look into that a little bit."
"Some of the APIs are just REST APIs and I would like to see more of the functionality in the plugin side of the world. For example, with the RESTful API I can actually delete or move an artifact from one Nexus repository to another. I can't do that with the pipeline API, as of yet. I'd like to see a bit more functionality on that side."
"Fortify Static Code Analyzer has a bit of a learning curve, and I don't find it particularly helpful in narrowing down the vulnerabilities we should prioritize."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
"It's very expensive for a small organization."
"They need to have a plug-in, a better integration with the development environment."
"The scanning could be a little faster. The process around three or four minutes, but it would help if it could be further reduced."
"When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications."
"The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity."
"The dynamic scanning feature works, but it doesn't work properly for some of our applications. It doesn't allow us to skip. They claim that we can do this, but it doesn't work when we're scanning the applications in real-time."
"The scanning takes a lot of time to complete."
Sonatype Lifecycle is ranked 6th in Application Security Tools with 42 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Sonatype Lifecycle is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Sonatype Lifecycle writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Sonatype Lifecycle is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, GitLab and Snyk, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our Sonatype Lifecycle vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.
