We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."AKS as a service is very good when you need to leverage applications or functions with much variability in their usage because you're trying to be as efficient as you can with resources."
"It is easy to deploy."
"The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"It employs high availability."
"The most valuable features of AKS are rollback updates, high availability, easy management, speedy execution and deployment."
"The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes."
"Integration and automation are the best features of the solution."
"The setup was straightforward and it took one hour to deploy."
"I appreciate the integration provided by Veracode that seamlessly integrates with our CI/CD tools and allows us to integrate with IPA as well."
"What I found most valuable in Veracode Static Analysis is that it categorizes security vulnerabilities."
"The automation of Veracode is great because we no longer have to run manual testing."
"The most valuable feature is the SAST capability and its integration into the Veracode pipelines."
"It has the ability to scale, and the fact that it doesn't produce a lot of false positives."
"Because it is a SaaS offering, I do not have to support the infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless automation of Veracode via the pipeline, in comparison to other solutions like Fortify SSC, which are complex to integrate through the pipeline."
"The ability on static scans to be able to do sandbox scans which do not generate metrics."
"One area that could be improved is the Azure CLI. It would be beneficial if they could abstract some of the complexities related to deployment scripts and make them a part of Azure CLI."
"There are some limitations with the tutor version, particularly in terms of using a lot of free audio. The private level also has restrictions, limiting the number of audio files you can access to just 50. If you want more, you need to contact support."
"We would like to see the addition of a service report from the server for this solution, so that we can monitor the health of server operations."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"It can be tough to access the servers when onboarding."
"The solution's cost could be cheaper."
"The engineering team can reduce the management of the platform itself by improving the data plane part of the system to upload more management."
"The application firewall is lacking some features and there is room for enhancement."
"The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted."
"In the last month or so, I had a problem with the APIs when doing some implementations. The Veracode support team could be more specific and give me more examples. They shouldn't just copy the URL for a doc and send it to me."
"The training lab is not very user-friendly and takes a long time to set up."
"The user interface could be more sleek. Some scanning requirements aren't flexible. Some features take some time for new users to understand (like what exactly "modules" are)."
"Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them."
"It should include more informational, low level, vulnerability summaries and groupings. Large related groups of low level vulnerabilities may amount to a design flaw or another avenue for attack."
"When Veracode updates the pool of tests and security checks, it could be a little more transparent about what it is releasing. It's not clear what it's adding. They do thousands of checks, and when they add more, there aren't many details about what the new tests are doing."
"Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access."
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while Veracode is ranked 4th in Container Security with 194 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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 ". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with OpenShift, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher, Qualys VMDR and Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
