"The user interface is modern and nice to use."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag."
"One of the most valuable features is it is flexible."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages."
"It can integrate very well with DAST solutions. So both of them are combined into an integrated solution for customers running application security."
"The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly."
"The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all."
"The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end."
"The static scan is the feature that we use the most, as it gives us insight into our source code. We have it integrated with our continuous integration, continuous delivery system, so we can get insight quickly."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"The main feature that I have found valuable is the solution's ability to find issues in static analysis. Additionally, there are plenty of useful tools."
"The visibility into application status helps reduce risk exposure for our software. Today, any findings provided by the DAST are reviewed by the developers and we have internal processes in place to correct those findings before there can be a release. So it absolutely does prevent us from releasing weak code."
"My experience with Veracode across the board every time, in all products, the technology, the product, the service, and the salespeople is fabulous."
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"The most valuable features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA."
"They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model."
"Creating and editing custom rules in Checkmarx is difficult because the license for the editor comes at an additional cost, and there is a steep learning curve."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives."
"I would like to see the DAST solution in the future."
"The ideal situation in terms of putting the results in front of the developers would be with Veracode integration into the developer environment (IDE). They do have a plugin, which we've used in the past, but we were not as positive about it."
"The static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools... Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved."
"The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved."
"If the dynamic scan is improved, then the speed might go up. That is somehow not happening. We have raised this concern. It might also help if they could time limit scans to 24 hours instead of letting them go for three days. Then, whatever results could be shared, even if the scan is not complete, that would definitely help us."
"I would like to see them provide more content in the developer training section. This field is really changing each day and there are flaws that are detected each day. Some sort of regular updates to the learning would help."
"We tried to create an automatic scanning process for Veracode and integrate it into our billing process, but it was easier to adopt it to repositories based on GIT. Until now, our source control repository was Azure DevOps Server (Microsoft TFS) to managing our resources. This was not something that they supported. It took us some sessions together before we successfully implemented it."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"The product has issues with scanning."
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Checkmarx is ranked 5th in Application Security with 20 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security with 24 reviews. Checkmarx is rated 7.6, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Checkmarx writes "Easy interface that is user friendly, quick scanning, and good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Good reporting, comprehensive interface, and integrates well into our build pipeline". Checkmarx is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Snyk, Coverity and WhiteSource, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Coverity, OWASP Zap and HCL AppScan. See our Checkmarx vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application 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.
