We performed a comparison between GitHub Advanced Security and GitLab 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."GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"Key features allow creation of well-presented Wiki that includes ideas, development, and domains."
"The tool helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments. It is very easy to learn. Its security model is good."
"We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature."
"The solution's service delivery model is fantastic."
"We like that we can have an all-encompassing product and don't have to implement different solutions."
"It is scalable."
"Their CI/CD engine is very mature. It's very comprehensive and flexible, and compared to other projects, I believe that GitLab is number one right now from that perspective."
"I like that you can use GitLab as a double-sided solution for both DevOps and version management. It's a good product for working in these two areas, and the user interface makes it easy to understand."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"We would like to generate document pages from the sources."
"It would be really good if they integrated more features in application security."
"GitLab can improve by integrating with more tools, such as servers with Docker."
"I don't really like the new Kubernetes integration because it is pretty focused on the on-premise environment, but we're in a hybrid environment."
"Reporting could be improved."
"When deploying the solution on cloud and the CI/CD pipeline, we have to define the steps and it becomes confusing."
"The integration and storage capabilities could be better."
"It is a little complex to set up the pipelines within the solution."
GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews while GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews. GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0, while GitLab is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and GitGuardian Platform, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton. See our GitHub Advanced Security vs. GitLab report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.