We performed a comparison between Spirent CyberFlood 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."The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"We use Veracode static analysis during development to eliminate vulnerability issues"
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"It allows us to prove our security levels to vendors, and additionally helps us with our HIPAA security policies."
"For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE."
"Veracode Security Labs are fantastic. My team loves getting the hands-on experience of putting in a flaw and fixing it. It's interactive. We've gotten decent support from the sales and software engineers, so the initial support was excellent. They scheduled a consultation call to dive deep and discuss why we see these findings and codes. That was incredibly helpful."
"It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications."
"The most valuable feature is Veracode SDP, which allows for something related to third-party vulnerabilities. When we build a product, we use a lot of third-party libraries instead of building everything from scratch. We just use a library which is already been built; we just use that component in our product. Sometimes, these libraries may have bugs or issues, and it's hard to keep track of them because we use thousands of them."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"Veracode Static Analysis lacks penetration testing, so that's a concern. The tool is also unable to scan when it's a C or C++ model, so that's another area for improvement."
"Some features could be improved in terms of user-friendliness."
"The GUI requires significant simplification, as its current complexity creates a steep learning curve for new users."
"Their scanning engine is sometimes a little bit slow. They can improve the scan time."
"The interface is basic and has room for improvement."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
"Another thing I need is continued support for the new languages today that are popular. Most of them are scripting languages more so than real, fourth-generation, commercial grade stuff; we're evolving. Most applications are using so much open-source that, quite frankly, it would be great to see Veracode, or anybody else, extend their platform to where they are able to help secure open-source platforms or repositories."
"Veracode Static Analysis could improve the terminology. For example, I do not know what the sandbox scan does. The terminology and the way they have used it are quite confusing. They should have a process of capturing problems that users are having on their end."
Spirent CyberFlood is ranked 33rd in Application Security Tools with 4 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Spirent CyberFlood is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Spirent CyberFlood writes "I like the solution's flexibility". 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 ". Spirent CyberFlood is most compared with Ixia BreakingPoint and Ixia BreakingPoint VE, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Spirent CyberFlood vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
