We performed a comparison between Black Duck and Sonatype Repository Firewall based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is stable."
"The product enables other applications to be secure."
"The installation is very easy."
"The stability is okay."
"The knowledge base and the management system are the most valuable features of Black Duck Hub. It has a very helpful management environment. They offer an editor where we can check the discovered license, which is retrieved from their knowledge base. They have a huge knowledge base build over the years. It gives you some possibilities, such as this license with possibility A could cause a vulnerability issue or a potential breach."
"The solution works well on Mac products."
"The most valuable feature for me in Black Duck is its ability to scan binary files effectively."
"The most valuable feature of Black Duck is the seamless integration to scan our Docker binary files, it provides us all open vulnerabilities, and it ensures a reference point from where it finds the vulnerability is up to date. For example, if there is any new vulnerability found, they are immediately available in the Black Duck. There is no delay in finding the vulnerabilities, they are called out in our code immediately."
"Another thing that I like about Sonatype is that if you download something today, and five days from today it becomes vulnerable, it will notify you."
"The product's network and intrusion protection features are valuable. It also has rules and compliance features for security."
"The initial setup could be simplified. It was somewhat complex."
"It needs to be more user-friendly for developers and in general, to ensure compliance."
"Due to the fact that, with our software developer life cycle, we don't need to scan our source code every day or every week. For that reason, we find the cost is too high. We might only actually use it five to ten times a year, which makes it expensive."
"I would like to see improvements in Black Duck's reporting capabilities."
"It can be cumbersome to use or invalidate open source software because there is a hold time to check requirements or common regulations to ensure compliance."
"The solution must provide more open APIs."
"We're not too sure about the extension of the firewall. It never shows up in the Hub."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing. Its configuration is complex and can be improved."
"What I don't like is the lack of an option to pick up the phone and call someone for support. That is something they need to improve on. They need to have a professional services package, or they need to include that option with their services."
"The tool needs to improve its file systems. The product should also include zero test feature."
Black Duck is ranked 1st in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 19 reviews while Sonatype Repository Firewall is ranked 14th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 3 reviews. Black Duck is rated 7.8, while Sonatype Repository Firewall is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Black Duck writes "Enables applications to be secure, but it must provide more open APIs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sonatype Repository Firewall writes "You will get clean code every time, and that's a great achievement". Black Duck is most compared with Snyk, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, JFrog Xray, Mend.io and FOSSA, whereas Sonatype Repository Firewall is most compared with JFrog Xray, Cisco Secure Firewall, GitHub, Sonatype Lifecycle and Veracode. See our Black Duck vs. Sonatype Repository Firewall report.
See our list of best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) vendors.
We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.