I have tested all of the solutions. I have tested Synopsys, Veracode, and Checkmarx. Checkmarx is a truly excellent product. The only drawback was that their dashboard was subpar, resulting in poor data quality.

We evaluated GitLab, Micro Focus, and SonarQube. 

We have a dedicated team that handles research, but I personally have only used Veracode for scanning. Our team used to use SonarQube.

Our company used to run both Veracode and SonarQube scans for certain projects. Sometimes, some of the scans were not included in Veracode, so the team used SonarQube for those. However, this was quite a while ago, about two years back.

Our organization evaluated four or five different solutions before selecting Veracode. The issue with the others was that they only offered either SAST or DAST, but not both, whereas Veracode provides both.

We evaluated multiple scanning solutions before choosing Veracode, and we perform a mandatory comparative analysis annually. Veracode's scanning engine is more innovative and provides a more detailed analysis relative to Snyk and AppScan. It performs much better in terms of the number of issues discovered. 

We did POCs and collaborated with Fortify, Veracode, and Checkmarx to see who gives the best results for all the applications. Veracode gave the best results, so we chose them for our organization.

We did look at other solutions recommended to us. We looked at Fortify and SCL AppScan. We looked at GitHub; however, it doesn't offer much static analysis compared to Veracode.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

I did evaluate other options before choosing Veracode. I looked at Checkmarx and Fortify as well as a solution made in Brazil.

We tried another solution before we started using Veracode. I believe it was HCLAppscan.

We evaluated a couple of open-source tools such as Snyk and SonarQube against Veracode with the help of a third-party vendor. We didn't use any of those and landed on Veracode because of the Veracode Verified seal. This, along with Veracode being the market leader, gave Veracode an edge over the others.

The main difference between Veracode and the solutions we evaluated is that Veracode is an all-in-one solution. Though an open-source solution would've been more cost-effective, we would've had to use a bunch of different tools. It would have required more knowledge to do the integration piece and would've taken a lot more time and effort. There would have been invisible costs associated with it just by the virtue of time. In comparison, Veracode's dynamic scan, static scan, and software composition analysis are all in one place.

We previously evaluated other solutions. One of the primary reasons for choosing Veracode was the ability to configure it at a deeper level, which was not possible with the other solutions. Another advantage was that the other solutions did not offer a six-month trial period, unlike Veracode. We initially had a trial for six months, which was later extended to one and a half years. Therefore, pricing became the third factor. However, even at the end of the two-year subscription, we were unable to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis. This seems to be a common situation in the industry. Without experiencing a breach, it is difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of a solution.

We had three or four other candidates from the reports that we evaluated from a user review site, but we ended up deciding to use Veracode because it had the best price and match for our technology stack.

At that time, Veracode's advantage was predominantly because it was SaaS-based software, and the implementation team was very supportive in making sure that we got it properly integrated into our processes.

The product was in place long before I arrived at the company, so I don't know if they evaluated other options.

At the time, we evaluated GitLab, SonarQube, and Micro Focus, but we didn't go for them because of various reasons, such as price concerns, pricing plans, and the availability of the solutions. 

Veracode and Micro Focus Fortify SSC are both making progress. Fortify's cloud-on-demand model is an improvement over the past. Both solutions handle the analysis part well, but Fortify needs to improve a lot of things. For one, Micro Focus Fortify hasn't been updated in a long time. They acquired the solution from HP long back, but I haven't seen much improvement. 

Veracode's browser-based solution doesn't have cloud-on-demand functionality. You only need to give consent once on Veracode's access URL, but Micro Focus requires another consent for Dynamic Application testing for WebInspect server, so we need to use SQL Server Express for the WebInspect server. 

We have some difficulties in a SQL Server because a client might not be able to install that in their environment. We may be able to install WebInspect, but we face some challenges dealing with SQL Server Express and other dependents. We have issues with those other supported plugins, libraries, or framework installation parts.

We decided to use Veracode without comparing it to any other kind of solution, we had a kind of consultancy from one of the companies, the IT services company that was one of our partners, and they worked close to us, and we selected Barracuda the tool that we needed.

I evaluated WhiteSource Bolt specifically for third-party library scanning, but I did not have a lot of time to create a proper PoC. I had a call with WhiteSource and told them that I would like to do a PoC, but I was not very satisfied with their support. It was like, "Just try the free solution then contact us again." However, the free solution didn't provide me enough things to make a decision. So, I just put it off until sometime possibly in the future. If Veracode offered third-party scanning, then we wouldn't need WhiteSource Bolt at all.

We also evaluated one of Veracode's competitors. After conversing with the sales and technical teams of both solutions, we concluded that Veracode was the best choice for us.

We looked at other solutions but one of the big things that made a huge difference with Veracode had to do with pricing. Because we're moving more and more toward a microservices architecture, and we have about six code bases that make up our entire product, they made it clear that as long as something was a part of our product, it was the same price. That was amazing to us because competitors charged per code base. It was definitely a more economical solution and the one that made more sense, and is more in line, with our product. That really simplified the thought process for us and was a huge competitive advantage.

We chose Veracode's Software Composition Analysis after we evaluated more than 10 products. Among those we evaluated were Checkmarx, Fortify, and SonarQube. The primary differentiator was the binary scanning use case.

We also evaluated Checkmarx and Snyk, respectively. This puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of identifying execution paths and their ability to comprehensively show how vulnerable code is executed in our solution.

I did a Gartner search on the top three solutions and looked at their reviews, and Veracode came out to be the leader, so I just went with the leader from a partner perspective.

The company looked at other options, and we try to do one-stop shopping when possible. We looked at other tools like Rapid7 but decided against doing a proof of concept because it doesn't offer static analysis. I don't think they could do software composition without static analysis. 

We could use Rapid7 for dynamic scans, but then we would have issues with report integration. One of the primary reasons we use Veracode today is that they have solid support. They typically respond to almost any ticket within 24 hours. Veracode also does an excellent job of integrating its various tools for static scanning, dynamic scanning, etc. 

At the end of the day, we stay with Veracode primarily because of the solution's integration. Our license is up this year, and we currently have no plans to seek out another vendor. We may consider switching next year.

I definitely looked at other security platforms, but Veracode seems to have the most performance.

With Xray, essentially you upload your builds, once you've uploaded your build, you index it. And after you index it, it'll give you a security report. Now, the thing with that is you have to make a policy, you get a report, the report comes out as a PDF and the PDF doesn't really tell you how to fix it. It tells you the fixed version.

The first path of that really was just creating a pipeline that ran a curl request over to Artifactory to generate that PDF. And then on Monday mornings, that was automated. So management can go in, look at that PDF and say, "Oh, okay, these are the things that are happening in our application." Whereas Veracode, is fully automated, it runs the full scan and then creates the tickets. So that's the contrast. 

I used JFrog X-ray with homegrown scripts for testing the code. It was terrible. We chose Veracode because it is more scalable. We could run scans on any code, and it was reliable. Also, their documentation was up to date. With other software providers, you would find an issue in the documentation, and they would backtrack, saying, "Oh, no one's using that." 

Veracode immediately responds to the community. You have people in the community supporting each other and suggesting new features. Software providers say they're open to suggestions. Veracode will quickly get something from the community and immediately put it into development. JFrog has the same stuff as they did four years ago. They haven't changed anything. 

Before selecting Veracode, we evaluated SonarQube and Codacy. We chose Veracode because of its comprehensiveness and its ability to provide us with a solution for each phase of the software development life cycle. Veracode offers both dynamic code analysis and static code analysis solutions. With Veracode, we were able to get everything we needed in one place, without having to sign contracts with multiple vendors.

I did look into other options, but Veracode was the best solution for us.

I've been using the security platform TryHackMe a lot, which also has a web console, but I wouldn't pay for the kind of console window that TryHackMe had. It has a lot of good aspects, so no disrespect to them; I learned a lot from it. But I understand how hard it is to create that and Veracode has managed to do so in a responsive way that works well. It's very impressive.

We evaluated a few other vendor partners and decided to go with Veracode because of the various features they offered.

We also evaluated SonarQube and Snyk in PoCs. We thought SonarQube and Veracode were good. 

We went with Veracode because its processes are very detailed and it supports a lot of languages. Though, compared to other solutions, it is difficult to integrate into the pipeline and can improve on its false positives.

Before choosing this product, many tools were tested, such as HPE WebInspect, AppScan, Checkmarx, etc. Those tools are good, and do their jobs really well. Veracode has many pros that involve a human touch, which is something a consulting firm, customers and big companies want from the information technology field.

We evaluated multiple solutions, including BlackBox, three years ago. However, Veracode was the only solution that had all the features and also had a proper certification system in place. The other solutions did not provide a comprehensive suite. For instance, they offered static scanning but lacked dynamic scanning, whereas Veracode provided both, along with a training module.

The "gold star" goes to Veracode's dynamic scanning capabilities. I've used other static scanners that may be a little bit better than Veracode, but the dynamic is a lot faster and a lot easier to use. The other ones I have used can be very complex when setting up the scans.

We also explored DeepSource for some time, but we did not go for it. The functionality that DeepSource provides is somewhere between Veracode and SonarQube. Veracode was a little bit better, and that is why we went for Veracode.

I think someone at my company was looking at SonarQube, but whoever did that didn't go forward with a commercial version. I don't know how it would've worked out, and I didn't look at it. There was a community version someone had for years, but it never got the traction. 

Then I looked at HCL, Synopsis, and Cast. Cast is deep but highly expensive. Those were the Cadillac solutions. We went with the SaaS because they did not have anything that was on-premThey wanted something that would be in the gov cloud that we fed ramped and low maintenance on our side. 

We evaluated AppScan from HCL.

When I came to my current company, I looked at a few options for security testing, and then zeroed in Veracode as the best option for us and for what we needed to do. We didn't go through too many competitors. Because I had experience with it, I said we should use it. I felt that it was the right product for us.

One of the advantages of Veracode is that it is a one-stop shop for everything you need. I did not want to hunt around for five different solutions and have to put them together and have to use five different dashboards. I really wanted a single solution for all our needs, and that's what I got from Veracode: static, dynamic, and the manual pen testing.

We compared Veracode Static Analysis with other vendors, including SonarQube, and went with Veracode because it had more value than others.

We evaluated Checkmarx and Synopsys before choosing Veracode Static Analysis.

We evaluated two or three different products before choosing Veracode. 

The reasons that we chose Veracode were their reputation and ease of use. Also, one of the senior people on the team had previous experience with it.

Another point is that their pre-sales team was very professional. Their discussions helped us in terms of getting to what we wanted.

We looked at IBM before we decided to go with Veracode. I've seen the documentation that our director of information security put together. 

We looked at six different solutions before we went with Veracode. Another company does their pricing model based on lines of code. WhiteSource was one other option we evaluated.

We did review a few of them. IBM App Scan and WhiteSource were definitely on the list. I don't remember the rest of them.

I am not sure what other solutions, if any, the company looked at before choosing Veracode initially. We have renewed it since that time and we pretty quickly decided to stick with Veracode, rather than switching. However, because of the relatively high cost, we will probably evaluate other options next time it's up for renewal.

We evaluated Micro Focus, Black Duck, SonarSource, and Coverity. We felt Micro Focus was the closest to really addressing all three of our needs, which is SAST, DAST, and the third-party software composition analysis. Micro Focus had the most complete execution from an implementation perspective, but it was very expensive for us. We went with Veracode because it was within our price point. 

We are getting huge value out of the dynamic scan and third-party library scanning. However, the initial euphoria has died down at this point, so we will be looking at additional tools to augment some of the solution's shortcomings.

We also used Contrast Security for real-time scanning on an experimental basis. If that is successful, we will probably roll that out. Contrast Security is very focused on run time scanning. Veracode also has some kind of module for this that we have not explored. However, the Contrast Security tool was suggested to us by one of our customers. We have not compared Veracode and Contrast Security yet.

The other tool which we use is Burp Suite for performing some manual verification. This is apart from what Veracode is not able to. Our customers are also reporting some vulnerabilities because they have their own scans. To verify those types of issues, we use Burp Suite. Burp Suite is pretty handy when you want to quickly do some penetration testing and verify some vulnerabilities. It is definitely a unique tool, and I don't think there is this kind of module with Veracode.

When I was at the last company, I looked at HPE (now Micro Focus) Fortify vs Veracode and maybe IBM had a product, but they were overly complex and overly expensive. I remember talking to our Veracode account rep, who also was my account rep originally here at Focus Script, and she did a fabulous job of explaining it, doing a demo, showing how easy it was to use, and that's what sold me. Again, it was recommended from a very large health plan as one of the more reputable systems out there.

I participated in the review of tools. We reviewed not only Veracode. There were also other candidates for our main tool for static scan and software composition analysis. So, I have been involved in all activities around Veracode from the very beginning. What I liked about Veracode is that it is not just one product. It is a big ecosystem. It even has integration with Visual Studio, etc. First of all, we took a look at the scope of scanning. We compared the results of scanning and the functionality. Veracode had really great reporting functionality. In the end, we came up with the conclusion that Veracode fits best to our needs, and I believe we were right.

Checkmarx and SonarQube.

We also evaluated WhiteHat Security.

We primarily looked at Netsparker as an alternative. 

It scans quickly versus other tools, like Qualys, Burp Suite, SonarQube, and Nexus. 

We have been using the Synopsys tool from Coverity for our static analysis.

Veracode is superior in terms of infrastructure because it is cloud-hosted. We don't have that with Coverity on-premise. We need to take care of capacity planning, infrastructure procurement. Also, with Coverity we have to invest some time to enable various checkers. The security profile configuration takes time compared to Veracode.

Coverity, on the other hand, is more robust and it works with the C programming languages.

We evaluated BitSight. The main advantage of Veracode was the UI, the dashboard. It's very easy to use and to manage.

Veracode's price is a little higher than other tools. However, they are the market leader.

Micro Focus Fortify doesn't have good APIs. Instead, they are relying on CLI. Whereas, Veracode is more API and DevSecOps friendly. Veracode's scanning time is better than Fortify's. 

We did a PoC with Black Duck.

HPE Fortify, Checkmarx, IBM AppScan. It really was between HPE Fortify, most of the time, and Veracode. I typically like Veracode because it is a SaaS solution. You have other providers now that do the same SaaS but then it goes back to the relationship and the partnership. I feel that I have that with Veracode.

We evaluated other options.

This year I looked at other vendors in the market, including Synopsys, Contrast, and Checkmarx. What I didn't like about them is that their licensing models are based on how many developers you have. That wasn't a good fit for me. In addition, Checkmarx didn't have a SaaS solution.

Synopsis and Checkmarx were explored for SAST/DAST scanning in 2017, prior to the use of SCA.

There are other products in the market. However, some of those products are extremely expensive or require a larger team to support them. Often, they have to be installed on-prem. Veracode is a bit more appealing for our organizations who don't have larger AppSec teams or where budget is a constraint. In this respect, SCA is a good solution.

We have been using Checkmarx for years, but mainly for their on-prem solution. They do have an offering in the cloud, but we haven't done any side-by-side tests in respect to speed. We did do a side-by-side comparison between Veracode and Checkmarx two or three years ago from a technical ability standpoint. At that time, Checkmarx came in a bit ahead of Veracode.

Checkmarx is more complex to set up because it is on-prem with multiple servers as well as there are a lot of things going up. If you have a larger budget and team, look into Checkmarx because it is a market leader. However, when it comes to a price, I would choose Veracode for a smaller company, not a large enterprise. 

Another consideration for Checkmarx, as an on-prem solution, is that you are pretty much ascertained that your code doesn't leave your company. With companies like Veracode, even if they are saying that you only upload the binary code, that's not quite true. The binary code can be reverse-engineered and the source code can be essentially reconstructed. For example, Veracode would not be suitable for a government agency or a government consultancy. 

For DAST, our customers like to use Qualys Web Application Scanning. There are very few players out there that can test APIs, but Qualys is one of them. 

Another promising solution that allows for testing APIs is Wallarm. We have done a couple of PoCs with them.

We tested Black Duck a few years ago, but they only had a SCA solution. They didn't have a SAST solution. I think they do now have a SAST solution because they acquired another company, Fujita.

IBM, Coverity.

For open source projects we mostly tested Snyk, which works quite well with JavaScript but much less so with other technologies. But it has some bigger problems because Snyk considers each file inside a repository of GitHub as a separate project, so it was creating a lot of false positives. That made it basically unmanageable, so we gave up on using it.

We have also been using an open source project called the OWASP Dependency-Check that was doing a decent job of software composition analysis but it required a lot of effort in checking false positives. To be honest, it would have been a good solution only if we didn't have a budget for Veracode, but luckily we had the budget, so there was no point in using it.

Another one that we tried, mostly because it was a small company and we had the opportunity to speak directly with them to ask for some small changes, was a company called the Meterian. It doesn't do static analysis, but otherwise the software composition analysis and the library report were the best of the bunch. From my perspective, if we didn't have the need for static analysis, I would have chosen Meterian, mostly because the user interface is much more usable than Veracode's. Also, the findings were much better. We still use it on the open source project because they offer a free version for open source—which is another good thing about some of these products, where the findings are available to anyone. For a company like ours, where we have both open source and enterprise products, this is quite good. Unfortunately, with Veracode, if we scan the open source project, we cannot link the pages of Veracode with the findings because they are private. That's a problem. In the end, for the open source projects, we are still using Meterian because the quality is good.

My main issues with Veracode, in general, are mostly to do with the user interface of the web application and, sometimes, that some pages are inconsistent with each other. But the functionality underneath is there, which is the reason we stay with Veracode.

I was not part of the evaluation team on this, unfortunately. But I believe the other options were evaluated as well, but I don't have access to that information.

We had been evaluating various different types of source-code scanners. It was a fundamental element of the program and we knew we had to have the best one that would meet a wide variety of applications: development, apps, as well as a wide variety of geographic dispersion of the people writing these apps. 

We had IBM, we had Fortify, we had PMD, and there was one other scanner at the time that we were evaluating. Veracode came out on top, in almost every category.

By using a cloud-based scanner, we really had no issues with where the developers are geographically located. So we didn't really have setup problems at all. It just kind of happened, and scales fairly naturally, organically.

We compared it with other tools as part of our proof of concept to adopt the right tool. Eventually, we selected Veracode because the tool provided us the easiest, fastest solution for our two use cases.

When we did the PoC to compare it with other tools, before we decided to adopt Veracode, one of the benefits that we saw is its reports are more focused on real issues. Other scanning tools that we tried, they produced much bigger reports with hundreds of vulnerabilities. That is too many vulnerabilities, so you cannot manage them nor decide where to focus. Using Veracode helps us focus where we need to.

We have used a Checkmarx tool, which is a competitor of Veracode. We have also examined Micro Focus Fortify and some other monitoring tools, which gave us a partial solution, had only static code analysis, or had only the open sources for composition part. We wanted one tool which does everything; we found Veracode all-encompassing.

We looked at other vendors but we selected Veracode because it had a top rating in industry reviews. For us, that was like a warranty.

The state of Ohio decided to bring AppScan in and that's an IBM tool. IBM became a major vendor in the state of Ohio. But what happened is that AppScan does not offer static code vulnerability checking; dynamic is something they do offer, but it's not as complete and comprehensive as a static scan is. Even the state has gone away from AppScan, but we were looking at it, we were starting to get set up for it. But evidently, other agencies haven't found it to be as useful. So we're not going that direction, we're staying with Veracode. 

There would have been cost savings associated with going with AppScan but we decided, because the state was not going that way, that we were not going that way either.

WhiteHat.

Yes, but too long ago to remember which ones.

There were a few other solutions we had looked at, but they didn't seem to be as robust. They also didn't have good reviews. That's why we chose this solution.

We evaluated no other products for SAST when we started using Veracode. 

I evaluated Kiuwan, Coverity, and Klocwork

I have previously evaluated Checkmarx.

I chose Veracode over others because it supported the programming languages we're using. It had the best language support. A lot of the other solutions might have supported one of the languages we're using, but not all of them.

I'd rather not give out competitor names.

But the method we were using in the past was what is called dynamic scanning, or DAST. That required we have an environment that was up and running with the application, and then we could proceed to scan. You can see that if we have 35 applications, that means we've got 35 environments running our application internally, just for scanning purposes. That's a lot of hardware, whereas this methodology uses static scanning, where we upload the compiled code and we don't invest any hardware in doing that. The scanning capability not only does the scanning but contains the application code for us. There are a lot of complexities with trying to do a dynamic scan on-premise, versus a static scan on a platform.

You almost can't compare the two. False-positive rate in the dynamic scanning was very high - 30 percent, maybe - and the false-positive rate for the static scanning is very low - maybe two to four percent. That is a significant value, because you don't have to spend a lot of time sorting through reported issues to determine if they're valid or not. We're pretty well assured that as we start investigating one, it's more than likely valid. We don't have that doubt entering in.

It was a different approach. Two concepts: 

1. That it is a cloud-based solution, which is very valuable to us, we don't need that hardware running our scans and hosting the environment to be scanned.
2. The technology, the static scanning versus dynamic scanning produces a much better result, a more accurate result.

There were some, but we didn't get serious about them because they didn't have everything that we wanted.

Fortify, App Scanner, Checkmarx.

HPE Fortify.

When it comes to secure coding, Veracode is the only one we really considered.

We had a couple of products that we looked at, but went with Veracode.

Competitors were evaluated but seemed, at once, too bloated or not relevant to all our specific requests. We were not interested in buying a product (such as a standalone program) rather we were interested in getting a tool for creating a process, and Veracode is that.

They didn't have products before this one. This one pre-dated them.

We did not evaluate any alternative solutions.

Checkmarx, SonarQube.

We evaluated other options, but we chose Veracode.

We did evaluate other options, but I can't remember who we looked at.

None. We might look into Checkmarx.

We also evaluated Synopsys.

Yes. Checkmarx, SonarQube and Fortify Software.