We performed a comparison between Cisco SecureX 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."SecureX enables us to have all the threat intelligence and threat event data in one place."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to manage all the applications and visibility. For example, if there is malware, spam, or another component that wants to attack the company in my servers, network, or applications, then SecureX will react to the problem."
"SecureX takes all the separate pieces of security within your company, adds in intelligence from different sites and services on the internet, and makes them work together."
"The automation and orchestration tools are the most valuable features."
"One of the most valuable features is the simplicity of deploying SecureX. It's very easy to do that and then you gain very detailed visibility into everything that's going on in your network and, obviously, at the device level. There's just a wealth of information that you can pull from all of these products that are part of SecureX. You know exactly if you have an issue or not."
"Integrates well with our existing security infrastructure."
"The most beneficial feature of Cisco SecureX for cybersecurity efforts is its integration with other Cisco solutions and the environment. This sets it apart, as its APIs and overall integration capabilities are very strong. Additionally, its detection capabilities are commendable."
"I like that I don't have to jump around to five different products and log into five different places to view the data that it returns."
"The solution is a specialist in SAST that you can rely on. Code scanning is fast with current, updated algorithms."
"The static scan is the most valuable feature."
"The platform itself has a lot of AppSec best practices information, especially in the mitigation recommendation process."
"Code analysis tool to help identify code issues before entered into production."
"The article scanning is excellent."
"The dynamic scanning tool is what I like the best. Compared to other tools that I've used for dynamic scanning, it's much faster and easier to use."
"There is a single area on the dashboard where you can get a full view of all of the tests and the results from everything. There is a nice, very simple graphic that shows you the types of vulnerabilities that were found, their severity, the scoring, and in what part of the code they were found. All the details are together in one place."
"The product provides guidance to develop secure software."
"The playbooks provided with the product are great, although I would appreciate having more playbooks available. Threats are constantly evolving, so having access to updated playbooks is crucial."
"One of the improvements the product needs is more integration with collaboration platforms."
"The front-end work controls the new algorithm and the firewall rules. The search feature of these rules could be improved."
"If they could make the Cisco Umbrella piece a little bit more advanced or easier to manage, that would help. We use it for filtering and when you compare it to a normal content filter, it lacks some functionality."
"I'm not sure that I would call it a bug, but sometimes the solution is a little slow."
"The documentation can be improved and the on-prem integration. The set of applications that it was integrated with wasn't comprehensive."
"They could expand into more areas. The more third-parties that we have tied into it, the better. The capabilities are there. As they just continue to involve the product, the more things that you can look into, then the more analytics that you can get. Also, the more data that we can get, then the better off we will be."
"I would like it to integrate with another solution, e.g., DNA. I would like it to connect to that solution, but not the security aspect."
"There needs to be better API integration to the development team's pipeline, which is something that is missing and needs to be improved."
"Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement."
"Scanning progress is highly dependent on the speed of the Internet."
"It could be improved with support for more programming languages, like SQL."
"It can be a bit complex because it takes a lot of time to have it complete the task."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow... Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it."
"They need to have a plug-in, a better integration with the development environment."
"The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity."
Cisco SecureX is ranked 18th in Application Security Tools with 13 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Cisco SecureX is rated 9.0, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco SecureX writes "Gives our customers visibility and they don't have to go multiple management consoles anymore". 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 ". Cisco SecureX is most compared with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Trend Vision One, Splunk SOAR and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Cisco SecureX vs. Veracode 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.
