We performed a comparison between Sonatype Repository Firewall 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."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."
"We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle."
"Veracode's integration with our continuous integration solution is what I've found to be the most valuable feature. It is easy to connect the two and to run scans in an automated way without needing as much manual intervention."
"It gives feedback to developers on the effectiveness of their secure coding practices."
"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."
"It is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage."
"It has the ability to scale, and the fact that it doesn't produce a lot of false positives."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
"The one thing we really liked about Veracode when we got it was the consultation calls; that our developers are able to schedule them on their own, instead of going to a "gatekeeper." They upload their code, they have questions, they schedule it, they speak with someone on the other side who is an expert, they can speak developer-to-developers."
"The tool needs to improve its file systems. The product should also include zero test feature."
"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."
"Sometimes we get a lot of false positives even after configuring our policies, so that could be improved."
"The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most."
"A high number of false positives are reported and this should be reduced."
"I would love to be able to do a dynamic sandbox scan. I think that that would allow us to really get a lot more buy-in from the software development teams."
"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."
"The scanning could be improved, because some scans take a bit of time."
"I would like to see these features: entering comments for internal tracking; entering a priority; reports that show the above."
"Raw file scans and dynamic scans would be an improvement, instead of dealing with code binaries."
Sonatype Repository Firewall is ranked 35th in Application Security Tools with 3 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Sonatype Repository Firewall is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Sonatype Repository Firewall writes "You will get clean code every time, and that's a great achievement". 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 ". Sonatype Repository Firewall is most compared with JFrog Xray, Cisco Secure Firewall, Black Duck, GitHub and GitLab, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Sonatype Repository Firewall vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.
