We performed a comparison between Code42 Incydr and GitGuardian Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has quite a bit of flexibility in configuring backup sets."
"It had the ability to preseed by sending in a data drive and could restore by sending the user a data drive."
"Security tools: Being able to monitor data going in and coming off our endpoints. Seeing what it is and where it's going is awesome."
"t has a very user friendly status bar with common errors and has logs built in to the console so we can review the issues or status of CrashPlan."
"Code42 Next-Gen DLP is scalable."
"There are a couple of things. One of them is that they have what they call Incydr. Their detection and response solution to the insider threat area is called Incydr. That gives visibility to the clients that have widely dispersed employee bases due to work from home, or that had a dispersed workforce predating any of the work from home requirements. Even though they might not be inside the organization physically, they're inside the organization. It allows us to get some visibility into what people are doing, what the context is, and how to control what might be the potential for intellectual property theft or file exposure."
"It required very little ongoing maintenance once setup."
"The solution is very stable. Very rarely do we have any issues with it. We don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find it to be reliable."
"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."
"It enables us to identify leaks that happened in the past and remediate current leaks as they happen in near real-time. When I say "near real-time," I mean within minutes. These are industry-leading remediation timelines for credential leaks. Previously, it might have taken companies years to get credentials detected or remediated. We can do it in minutes."
"I like GitGuardian's instant response. When you have an incident, it's reported immediately. The interface gives you a great overview of your current leaked secrets."
"GitGuardian Internal Monitoring has helped increase our secrets detection rate by several orders of magnitude. This is a hard metric to get. For example, if we knew what our secrets were and where they were, we wouldn't need GitGuardian or these types of solutions. There could be a million more secrets that GitGuardian doesn't detect, but it is basically impossible to find them by searching for them."
"GitGuardian has pretty broad detection capabilities. It covers all of the types of secrets that we've been interested in... [Yet] The "detector" concept, which identifies particular categories or types of secrets, allows an organization to tweak and tailor the configuration for things that are specific to its environment. This is highly useful if you're particularly worried about a certain type of secret and it can help focus attention, as part of early remediation efforts."
"The entire GitGuardian solution is valuable. The product is doing its job and showing us many things. We get many false positives, but the ability to automatically display potential leaks when developers commit is valuable. The dashboards show you recent and historical commits, and we have a full scan that shows historical leaked secrets."
"The most valuable feature is the alerts when secrets are leaked and we can look at particular repositories to see if there are any outstanding problems. In addition, the solution's detection capabilities seem very broad. We have no concerns there."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"I think one we can improve is the compression."
"There doesn't seem to be any feature that is lacking."
"More security would be nice, I would love to be able to remotely brick a stolen laptop and it's hard disk drive (HDD)."
"The application, written in Java, required far more system resources on a Client than other solutions."
"Due to recent changes that effectively abandoned an entire segment of their user base, I no longer trust nor can recommend Code42 products."
"You can't always filter out data that you'd like to."
"Reporting could use an overhaul. It is very limited."
"I would like to see more flexibility on privileges, perhaps create another kind of admin for regions. Also, I would like the ability to access logs without having to be on the actual device or a super-admin."
"It would be nice if they supported detecting PII or had some kind of data loss prevention feature."
"There are some features that are lacking in GitGuardian. The more we grow and the more engineers we have, the more it will become difficult to assign an incident because the assignment is not automatic. I know they are working on that and we are waiting for it."
"An area for improvement is the front end for incidents. The user experience in this area could be much better."
"GitGuardian's hook and dashboard scanners are the two entities. They should work together as one. We've seen several discrepancies where the hook is not being flagged on the dashboard. I still think they need to do some fine-tuning around that. We don't want to waste time."
"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."
"It could be easier. They have a CLI tool that engineers can run on their laptops, but getting engineers to install the tool is a manual process. I would like to see them have it integrated into one of those developer tools, e.g., VS Code or JetBrains, so developers don't have to think about it."
"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."
"There is room for improvement in GitGuardian on Azure DevOps. The implementation is a bit hard there. This is one of the things we requested help with. I would not say their support is not good, but they need them to improve in helping customers on that side."
Code42 Incydr is ranked 15th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 78 reviews while GitGuardian Platform is ranked 6th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 21 reviews. Code42 Incydr is rated 9.0, while GitGuardian Platform is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Code42 Incydr writes "Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitGuardian Platform writes "It dramatically improved our ability to detect secrets, saved us time, and reduced our mean time to remediation". Code42 Incydr is most compared with Threat Detection, Investigation & Response (TDIR) Platform, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Morphisec and Backup and Restore for SharePoint & Microsoft Office 365, whereas GitGuardian Platform is most compared with SonarQube, Cycode, GitHub Advanced Security, Snyk and Veracode. See our Code42 Incydr vs. GitGuardian Platform report.
See our list of best Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vendors.
We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 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.
