We performed a comparison between GitLab and Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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."Key features allow creation of well-presented Wiki that includes ideas, development, and domains."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"The SaaS setup is impressive, and it has DAST solutioning."
"The tool helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments. It is very easy to learn. Its security model is good."
"It is very flexible and easy because you can store data on cloud."
"GitLab is very well-organized and easy to use. Also, it offers most features that customers need."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting, which provides a good level of detail with respect to vulnerabilities."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is very easy to use."
"Our customers adopt this solution because of the replication testing and the vulnerability assessment it can do. It is a multi-faceted product."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It collects the vulnerabilities on the hostnames and sends them to the Tenable.io cloud. Tenable has its own cloud where Tenable.io is running, but there are many connectors to other cloud solutions. Tenable can do vulnerability scanning for other cloud managers such as Azure, Amazon, and so on."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution's instant reports feature is the most effective for detecting threats."
"All the features are valuable to us as they offer cutting-edge scanning methods and address the latest issues with a contemporary approach. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is highly stable. I rate it a nine out ten. Since the solution works on the Cloud, it's highly scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. The setup of the solution is straightforward. The Return on Investment is substantial. I recommend the solution to all."
"I'm new to GitLab, so I would appreciate more documentation about the code and commands."
"There was a problem with the build environment when we were looking at developing iOS applications. iOS build require Mac machines and there are no Mac machines provided by GitLab in their cloud. So to build for mobile iOS application, we needed to use our own Mac machine within our own infrastructure. If GitLab were to provide a feature such that an iOS application could also be built through GitLab directly, that would be great."
"Even if I say I want some improvement, they will say it is already planned in the first quarter, second quarter, or third quarter. That said, most everything is quite improved already, and they're improving even further still."
"It's more related to the supporting layer of features, such as issue management and issue tracking. We tend to always use, for example, Jira next to it. That doesn't mean that GitLab should build something similar to Jira because that will always have its place, but they could grow a bit in those kinds of supporting features. I see some, for example, covering ITSM on a DevOps team level, and that's one of the things that I and my current client would find really helpful. It's understandably not going to be their main focus and their core, and whenever you are with a company that needs a bit more advanced features on that specific topic, you're probably still going to integrate with another tool like Jira Service Management, for example. However, some basic features on things like that could be really helpful."
"I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five."
"GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."
"It is a little complex to set up the pipelines within the solution."
"GitLab could improve by having more plugins and better user-friendliness."
"Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is not very user-friendly and you need a lot of information to get proper reports. The tool's support is not very responsive."
"The reporting has a very limited customization capability."
"It isn't easy to manage vulnerabilities in Tenable."
"They have a general dashboard for web application scanning, but the dashboards and reporting can be improved. They probably have some features in their roadmap."
"It would be great if there were a dashboard that is more user-friendly."
"The dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The solution's dashboards could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The platform's technical support services could be better."
More Tenable.io Web Application Scanning Pricing and Cost Advice →
GitLab is ranked 7th in Application Security Tools with 70 reviews while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is ranked 24th in Application Security Tools with 14 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable.io Web Application Scanning writes "Highly Recommended Solution with Latest Scanning Methods". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton, whereas Tenable.io Web Application Scanning is most compared with Acunetix, Qualys Web Application Scanning, Fortify on Demand, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional and SonarQube. See our GitLab vs. Tenable.io Web Application Scanning 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.
