We performed a comparison between NowSecure and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)."The most valuable feature is the ability to download an application without actually putting in the APK. It gives us an option to put the APK in if we want to but we can download it from the App Store and Play Store."
"The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with."
"The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up."
"For use cases where our company buys a product with the source code, but only the final executables or the binaries, only Veracode is able to work on that type of tool."
"It allows us to prove our security levels to vendors, and additionally helps us with our HIPAA security policies."
"I liked that I could easily find out where my errors were. Instead of going through the whole code and the scripts, it showed me where the errors were and gave me an idea of how to fix them."
"Regarding Software Composition Analysis, an exceptional feature is that during a SAST scan, SCA is seamlessly conducted in the background."
"The solution's ability to help create secure software is very valuable. We're a zero-trust networking company so we want to have the ability to say that we're practicing security seriously. Having something like Veracode allows us to have confidence when we're speaking to people about our product that we can back up what we're doing with a certification, with a reputable platform, and say, "This is what we're using to scan an application. Here's the number of vulnerabilities that are on an application. And here's the risk that we're accepting.""
"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."
"In this solution, there are two kinds of testing, static analysis, and dynamic analysis. There needs some improvement in testing with dynamic analysis because I have found it is not accurate"
"The policies you have, where you can tune the findings you get, don't allow you not to file tickets about certain findings. It will always report the findings, even if you know you're not that concerned about a library writing to a system log, for example. It will keep raising them, even though you may have a ticket about it. The integration will keep updating the ticket every time the scan runs."
"The JIRA integration automation aspect of it could be improved significantly. We want to have a way to create tickets that are going to allow people to work through those flaws that we're finding. We don't want people to feel like they're missing out on something or that they're not following directions in the right way."
"We have encountered occasional issues with scalability."
"Scheduling can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had."
"The false positive rates were quite high in our case."
"The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report."
"The solution does take a bit more time when we use it for multiple processes."
"Once your report has been generated, you need to review the report with consultation team, especially if it is too detailed on the development side or regarding the language. Then, you need some professional help from their end to help you understand whatever has been identified. Scheduling consultation takes a longer time. So, if you are running multiple reports at the same time, then you need to schedule a multiple consultation times with one of their developers. There are few developers on their end who work can work with your developers, and their schedules are very tight."
Earn 20 points
NowSecure is ranked 33rd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Static Application Security Testing (SAST) with 194 reviews. NowSecure is rated 7.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of NowSecure writes "Scalable and reliable, but dynamic analysis needs improvement". 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 ". NowSecure is most compared with Data Theorem API Secure , Acunetix, Checkmarx One and GitLab, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer.
See our list of best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
