We have seen a return on investment.

We have seen an ROI with Veracode regarding time, money, and overall organization reports. Our ROI is in the region of 25-30%.

The solution reduced the cost of our DevSecOps by lowering the headcount for those previously dedicated to security throughout the SDLC. They can now spend more time improving their code base and focusing on development.  

We have seen a return on investment. We have two hundred teams, and approximately 70 percent of them are integrated with Veracode, running pipeline scans on about 50 percent of those. The remaining teams conduct manual SAST scans instead of using pipeline scans. We have likely saved 25 percent or more of the time it takes developers to go from a startup project to the final build and deployment, just by addressing vulnerabilities.

I have not calculated the return on investment, but I think it's at least 200 percent. 

Veracode has eliminated a lot of manual security processes that cost a lot of money and time. It has saved us lots of time and money for development.

We have witnessed an ROI. We've noted a reduction in incidents, for example, and our company has witnessed a 20% growth in the time we have used it.

There is no maintenance required.  

I'm not sure of the exact amount saved, however, we have noted an ROI. We have avoided application vulnerabilities in production. We don't need to rework things since we look at the vulnerabilities right in development instead of after deployment. 

It has reduced the cost of dev backups in our organization. 

We can measure our ROI in the amount of issues we discover and remedy. From a quality control perspective, a problem is more expensive if a customer reports it. If we take price into consideration, we've decreased the net cost of security because we're receiving fewer issues from our customers. You must also consider the reputational cost if the customer needs to implement the fix. 

If we find the issue after the fact, we need to provide our customers with the fix, and that may require some additional processes on the customer side. However, it's hard to calculate how much money it saved us.

It's hard to quantify ROI on security. It makes us feel better. We have all this scanning, and we're identifying where we are vulnerable. If it prevents exposure, it saves us millions of dollars. There's potentially a considerable ROI, but it's speculative at this point.

I have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. It positively impacts our team's ability to get their job done, which reduces strain on employees and therefore reduces employee turnover, which, given the severity of the skill set that we look for, is incredibly impactful for us.

It is quite challenging to calculate ROI. However, I can confidently state that over the course of two years, we did not experience a single security breach. Furthermore, we ensured that our solutions were free from any vulnerabilities when delivering them to our clients. As a result, we established a positive reputation with our clients, as evidenced by the certification from Veracode, confirming the absence of vulnerabilities in our overall feature or code deployment. In summary, we maintained a flawless record of zero security breaches. Despite the difficulty in conducting a cost-benefit analysis, it remains an essential task.

From a commercial perspective, the impact that the Veracode certification has had on our ability to sell to large enterprises is non-debatable. The return on investment has been met, for sure. It took six months and occurred when we had finished implementing and got the certification.

We have definitely seen an ROI. It helps the developers and testers to go through all the security flaws in their code or application repository in a very unique way. There are no chances of any security flaws or issues in the application. It helps the organization and the team. So, ultimately, it provides a positive return on investment.

To a small extent, we have seen ROI, on the order of 10 percent. It is very expensive to use and that means you really need to make a lot of sales before you can compete with the cost of Veracode. The ROI is there, but very small.

With Veracode, we are developing more secure, scalable, and stable applications on a faster track. Our clients know that they can trust us to deliver secure applications that meet their expectations. This led to increased sales, even though our products are priced higher than our competitors. We are able to charge a premium because our products meet the Swedish standard for security, compliance, and risk. As a result, we have seen a 65 percent return on investment.

We calculate the return on investment primarily based on the risk. We calculate the ROI annually, but it's not very detailed. We factor in the risks associated with the loss of customer information loss, penalties for noncompliance, etc. In the worst-case scenario, we estimate that could potentially lose up to $1 million annually. 

It took some time to see the benefits, around six to eight months.

I'm sure we have seen ROI, but I do not have a direct metric on it. There are a lot of intangibles in that. For example, what would be the cost of a particular flaw that we caught with Veracode, if it had gone live?

Our return on investment is due to saving a lot of development hours.

Even after six months, we've seen an ROI. In terms of resources, it's great for cost-cutting. It also generally cuts costs by 40%.

Our ROI comes mainly in the form of compliance. We get a star rating when we're automated, and we need to maintain that. We currently have a fairly high rating, so it's not so much about gaining stars. We need to avoid losing them. By maintaining our high rating, we can also gain more clients. 

Veracode assists us in increasing our sales by allowing us to redirect the funds that would have been used to pay our ex-pats to troubleshoot errors or issues with vulnerable code. Consequently, we are experiencing a higher return on investment, and our company has generated over 55 percent return on investment since implementing Veracode.

We have seen a 32 percent return on investment with Veracode.

The ROI for us is that it improves our code quality and helps remove security flaws. It is an essential tool.

We have absolutely seen ROI. We have buy-in from upper management and developers. We have a lot of people who are very excited about what we're doing and we're working towards that.

We've personally seen a major decrease in vulnerabilities and we've seen an increase in awareness for security. So people actually have conversations about security now, and they're taking it seriously. It's no longer an issue that gets swept under the rug. I think a lot of smaller organizations would benefit from having a tool that showed them what is being done, as opposed to someone just saying this is what we're doing if they can see the results that really improve. So, once we added that, we saw a decrease in vulnerabilities, we decreased our third-party vulnerabilities from a pretty significant level and attended the three down to single digits, which is huge for any organization.

As an application manager, I certainly find Veracode very useful. It definitely improves the robustness of the application. It detects every single small or large flaw and helps us with the appropriate recommendations. I would go with Veracode unless there is a product that is equally capable but with a lower price.

Veracode has helped us to have a good application that is secure and compliant. It has helped to assure our clients that we are very secure and compliant. It helps to make sure that they are transacting with a lot of confidence. It has provided an ROI, and we have been able to notice an increase in business.

You have to compare the price to the potential cost of data security threats, which could devastate your reputation and revenue overall. We do not doubt that the investment is worth it. It's too early to calculate an ROI, but we anticipate a reduction in overall DevSecOps costs. 

We have seen return on our investment in Veracode because security is a major issue and, before deploying source code into production, we need to make sure it is clean with no security flaws so that no issues are raised by customers.

We have been able to mitigate lots of flaws and vulnerabilities, so Veracode has had a positive effect on our products. It's hard for me to quantify. Our company has a large footprint across Asia, North America, South America, and Europe. 

With Veracode, the benefits are clear, and we can see a return on investment through the visibility it offers. This enables us to fix flaws sooner, thereby reducing the time to market for our customers.

On our team, the solution has been very helpful. For more than two years, it has helped us get a lot of things on our application. It is easier for us to do fixes instead of just doing a pen test every time, then getting everyone to check it. 

We don't see a direct return from using Veracode, but it ensures we deliver a product without security faults. It has also reduced our development costs, but it's difficult to quantify that. By having the code tested before we ship it to clients, we ensure our clients don't have issues with the security of our software. 

The cost has been an important aspect for us, but we have run with the additional cost of the overall code analysis. One of the major reasons is that developers get a better understanding of where their code stands before a security tester gets into the picture. The cost-benefit for us is that, rather than having to build up a whole security testing team, developers get security insights earlier in the development lifecycle. After that, we can introduce the testers to get things finished, and that reduces the manpower cost.

I don't know what ROI might be in terms of a dollar amount, but the peace of mind and quality it gives us, making sure we don't get hacked, are types of ROI.

It is too early for that, but Veracode will save us development effort and time. That will be the return on investment for us in the future. We will be able to measure its overall cost-effectiveness by comparing what we are paying for the service and how much developer time it is saving. 

I used it for two years in my last organization, and we saved a lot of costs. It was not related to the product; it was related to the risks that we used to get. On the technology side, it surely saved a lot.

I have seen a return on investment of about 50 percent. It has reduced the number of DevOps that we need, saving us about $800 per month.

Our biggest return on investment is maintaining certifications that enable us to attract customers of larger scale and government-sensitive customers.

Going back to the cost structure, I think that the way Veracode is priced and their comparison to third parties, I still put them at four out of five.

We used it to scan and detected a vulnerability, and they're trying to use it to identify how to fix the problem. That's the only example of an ROI we've got so far. 

Veracode is a good investment, and I can recommend it to anyone who is looking for the best security tester. I estimate that we saw a 60 percent ROI this year, and it continues.

Our ROI is that we have seen a tremendous increase in the overall security of our enterprise software. It has helped us engage better with our clients and our retention rate has increased about 7 percent. We can't pinpoint that directly to using Veracode, but since we started using it we have seen this retention increase.

I don't think we've seen a return on this, but it's hard to calculate because you have to estimate the value of a breach that hasn't happened. This is the main benefit of using this tool. I don't know how to measure that.

We have not reached the point where we see ROI from Veracode Static Analysis because we're still assessing it, but there are so many vulnerabilities. If we fix some of the high-priority vulnerabilities not reported by the customer, and zero them out or reduce them, then we see value from the tool. Those high-priority vulnerabilities are less than manageable because they have multiple levels or layers.

I cannot say we have had a return on investment because we haven't had any security incidents, but we didn't have any before using Veracode Static Analysis either.

It's too early to say whether we have seen ROI because we're marketing our product and services to newer customers. We haven't had visibility from that perspective, yet.

I do not have any information on ROI. We became better from an engineering standpoint, but I don't know if we saved a ton of money in the process.

It's not so huge to provide a lot of return on investment, but it's helping us to have a stable solution. It's a secure platform, but in terms of the return on investment, it hasn't made a very good impact yet. We have only seen 10% to 15% ROI.

It has reduced the cost of DevSecOps for the organization because we can use one platform to develop, troubleshoot, and debug faster, so it has helped us a lot.

We have seen a return on our investment with Veracode. I can't point to a dollar figure, but I've been directly involved in customer conversations where we can talk about our security program and how Veracode is an important element. We've distributed report summaries and talked about results with our customers and having this information in those conversations is definitely valuable.

It's also very useful that we can talk about it with our security auditors. We have SOC 1, SOC 2, and ISO 27001, and they don't specify that you must have a static analysis tool. But when we need to maintain secure engineering practices, having a tool like Veracode is very important for us to demonstrate that to auditors. There's certainly value there as well.

There is also a tremendous value on the marketplace that we get from having those security audits and certificates, which is a second-order of value that Veracode drives.

I can't say with certainty that Veracode reduces the cost of application security, although I would say that it focuses our effort. It gives us guidance and prioritization on where we should spend time. Otherwise, we might not know about particular issues. We might inadvertently spend time on things that aren't that valuable. So, the value is more about focusing on where we need to spend time.

The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months.

Veracode has definitely helped us close deals with the software being compliant to our customers' various standards. 

Before we had Veracode, customers might have demanded some scanned compliance reports, which we didn't have. Because of that, we might have lost some customers during the pre-sales cycle. That cost is huge compared to what we are paying for Veracode.

It has saved our developers' time from six months to two weeks.

I haven't really thought about cost savings related to code fixes, since we implemented Veracode, other than: It's always easier and much cheaper to catch errors and fix them before you go to production, versus catching them while in production. Just like it's much easier to fix things before production, as opposed to having somebody hack your system and to find out that you have a cross-site script error.

But again, I've never quantified it in terms of whether it's saved me money. 

Just off the cuff, the cost of the license is small in comparison to the value it brings. I don't have to buy the software myself, I don't have to have specially trained security professionals that monitor this stuff. But I haven't really broken it down to quantify it into dollars, as such.

We achieve greatly improved security, earlier detection of security defects in the lifecycle, and as well as neatly meeting compliance requirements.

Unknown - productivity and time are measurable, possibly as much as 20%. Improvement in cross departmental relations is priceless!

The ROI is in terms of time savings and mature security. When you deploy a solution like Veracode, you can have these quickly.

It reduces the cost of DevSecOps for the organization when you use it for more than one year.

We hope that we will have a successful integration in the near future and that it will bring major benefits, at least for the managers and the people who are responsible for analyzing the flows and for keeping security under control. The amount of management effort will be reduced at that point.

Veracode has not reduced the cost of AppSec in our organization yet, but that's only because we are very early in the implementation.

SCA reduced the cost of AppSec for our organization, because of things like stability.

I feel that management would not approve it if we were not getting our money's worth out of it. We have definitely seen ROI from Veracode.

Going forward, though, what may bring that into question is our transition to the cloud. We're not getting any benefit from those applications in the cloud. I think that should be addressed sooner rather than later.  We're moving to the cloud more, and for our applications in the cloud we usually only go with FedRAMP-certified cloud vendors. So we're not actually even scanning those applications in the cloud with Veracode. Not all our applications are there, but close to 30 percent of them are there now.

And they have to address not being compatible with certain platforms that we use. That has to be addressed because the ROI question may be coming up sooner rather than later.

Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license. It's a good return on investment because it improves the application security for all the different types of scans.

It reduced the cost of AppSec for our organization because otherwise we would have had to go through multiple vendors for application security. With Veracode, one solution fit all our needs. It reduced the AppSec cost by reducing the numbers of vendors. Typically, you would have different products for different types of scanning. For static analysis you might use one tool, and for dynamic another, and for third-party software composition analysis you might use another. And after using all those tools, you might still have to consult with another vendor. Veracode combines all this into a single solution.

I would estimate that it saved us $500,000 a year.

There is no direct ROI. There is a cost of security, overall. It saves a lot of time and it allows us to have the certifications and comply with the clients' requirements, but it's very hard to have a direct ROI. It's a cost for compliance and security that is worth it.

The ROI seems good so far. The client is happy with what they invested in Veracode. Having our developers now think about security is also helping us out.

The solution has reduced the cost of AppSec a little bit for our organization through the automation of pentesting.

We have seen a 30 percent reduction in pentesting. Using Veracode, we can do faster releases.

It has helped us reduce our overall time to remedy any validity, which can be found after being rolled out and put into production. Though, I cannot give you the number. It is always better to safeguard the environment rather than being hacked or have production downtime. In three years, we have not had any breaches or we seen any reduction in Shadow IT.

We've just concluded the onboarding this year. I can see improvement, but I can't really equate it to a monetary value. This will be determined by the financial team. 

We've seen ROI in that we've cut down on the number of penetration tests we've been doing by about 50 percent, and also because of the stage at which the vulnerabilities are found, before they get into production. That means the risk has also been reduced.

It has reduced the cost of application security for our organization, but more than it has reduced the cost, it provides better software assurance.

We feel that security scanning is a necessary cost of doing business, especially with FedRAMP and other prescriptive certifications. The effort we put into scanning keeps our applications healthier with higher quality confidence.

When our scan pipelines work as intended, there is little human capital cost. If there are problems with the scan pipelines and/or scan results then this can become time-consuming to address.

As long as developers use the tool and Veracode consistently, that can reduce the cost of penetration testing.

It has not really resulted in any cost savings related to code fixes.

My job is mostly technical. I don't own a budget and I don't track numbers. But as the customers are really keen on having us checking security issues, I would definitely say that we have seen a return on investment.

Most of our customers tend, especially in the software composition analysis, to apply their own in-house tools to the artifacts that we share with them. Whenever we release a new version of software and Docker images, they upload it to their systems. Some of them have the internal equivalent of Veracode and they come back to us to say, "Hey, you haven't taken care of this vulnerability." So it is very important for us to be proactive on each set of release notes. We need to show the current status of the product: that we have fixed these vulnerabilities and that we still have some well-known vulnerabilities, but that there are workarounds that we document. In addition they can check the reports that we attach, the reports from Veracode, that show that the severity is not high, meaning they don't create a big risk.

It delivers because we haven't been thinking, "Okay, let's consider another product." We might see some savings so I think the pricing is right.

Regarding any cost savings relating to code fixes since we implemented Veracode in our development process, I can't say I have that information off the top of my head.

Our customers demand that we provide secure software. Veracode is giving us the mandate of claiming that our code is more secure because we are using an external third-party, neutral tool to examine our code and expose vulnerabilities. By fixing them, Veracode takes some of the responsibility, which is kind of a diploma that we can wave when we are negotiating with our customers.

We could save some money having an on-premise solution, but the fact that this is a SaaS means we can be sure that it's updated. It's outsourced. In terms of cost, I don't see a big advantage, but in terms of operations there is because we don't have to take care of it. We know that if, somewhere else in the world, somebody detects a vulnerability, a few minutes later we will already have a patch. This is extremely important for us. Nobody in our company has to touch anything to get this.

If we had to designate one or two people to take care of maintenance of an application, at some moment one of them might not be updating things. With Veracode, we know that we don't have to worry. We just have to focus on our development. We don't consider maintenance at all because it's all managed.

We are a state agency, so we're not for profit. I tell everybody we don't make money, we spend money. To frame it in the context of the public sector, I think we are giving our citizens peace of mind. When they come in to write a permit, and we send them to a service that collects payment, that jumping-off point is secure and safe. It would be more in those terms, rather than the bottom line.

In the public sector, return on investment is not a term that is easily understood because we do not invest. But total cost of ownership is something that we can put our arms around. When we think about potential data breaches, Veracode has certainly helped us. When you think about the cost of the product and that I have one person, not ten people, running this tool, the total cost of ownership is low. I have no devices or servers, I didn't have to do any of that here onsite. It's all in the cloud. The total cost of ownership, given the services they provide, is very low, in my opinion.

The cost savings are the efforts that it would take to do this at a stretch if this was not implemented early on in our development cycle.

We don’t have the metrics to track specific dollars, but Veracode has saved us the cost of hundreds of employee hours by streamlining our vulnerability discovery process in legacy code, and by improving the quality of code released into production. 

As we support our organization's customer-facing digital channels by writing higher quality code, we have reduced the amount of bugs or downtime a user experiences using our systems. This saves in employee time and also increases engagement with our digital channels.

It took two years to see ROI for our clients.

Given the following:

• Effectiveness of automatic detection of defects, taking into account bad fixes. 
• Effort to find and correct a defect during automatic detection.
• Effort to find and correct a defect during post release. 
• Effectiveness of testing. 
  

ROI expressed as project savings is 2.4% of the project cost.

I can't think of any cost savings related to code fixes since implementing Veracode. We are mostly focused on using it for application security, which is a hard thing to quantify unless you have a major breach.

I'm not sure if we have seen ROI. We didn't have any high-severity security defects being raised by Veracode, and that's just a function of the development team members we had. It helped in protecting ourselves from potential class action lawsuits.

By implementing Veracode in our development process, what we've done is cost avoidance, not necessarily savings. By getting ahead of it, and releasing product to the market that's more secure, we have very few, if any, reported issues by our customers. So we don't have to go and do a maintenance repair of those. That's an avoidance of cost. 

It's a pretty accepted standard that if you release a vulnerability or a flaw into the market, it's going to cost you 10 times more to address it after the fact than if you prevent it. I'd say that that, plus the automation of the scanning, has also reduced the amount of capacity or full time equivalence we have to apply to repair and scan.

As I said, we have 35 applications, and instead of having 35 different people preparing their packages for upload and scan, it's automated. We don't have to spend money doing that as well. 

So avoiding the cost of releasing vulnerabilities into the market that get caught by customers and reported back, is a big one; and then, reducing the investment of performing the continual scans.

I wish I had some numbers - this is really not my area. I would assume that it's got to be a fair amount of cost savings, only because we're touching things earlier. We didn't have anything before. I don't have good stats to provide except for the fact that now we have something in our process, where before we didn't. Before, security things were only being addressed if somebody actually found something or, even worse, if a customer found something. We don't have a lot of historical data but it's got to be substantial.

I believe, from a technical standpoint, it's paying off for the rest of the organization. I think ethically it's the right thing to do. Educating our staff - I don't really know how you measure that in a dollar amount - but our developers are getting education and are becoming more aware of security in their software. Me being a technical guy, those two things are huge, and the dollars don't add up enough. I'm not sure how you would measure it.

It probably pays off more over time as well. We're still only a year into it. So we're still learning a lot ourselves.

We don't do a detailed enough analysis to reflect on any cost savings relating to code fixes made since we implemented Veracode.

It is difficult to assert, but it helps a lot with maintaining compliance with our main customers, and helps us to pinpoint some specific issues. The cost of not having Veracode would be pretty high for us.

There are no directly measurable cost savings. We see security improvement as a key part of our product development.

I can't give you exact numbers, but it's a lot cheaper to do it sooner rather than later.

It helps us get over the line for security when contracting with customers, and any help reducing security vulnerabilities is a big help to us.

In terms of cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode in our development process, I can't really give hard numbers.

I cannot give numbers on any cost savings related to code fixes since implementing CA Veracode in our development process.

I can't report on any cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode in our development process, but it makes us feel more confident about our code, which is awesome.