We performed a comparison between CodeSonar 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."What I like best about CodeSonar is that it has fantastic speed, analysis and configuration times. Its detection of all runtime errors is also very good, though there were times it missed a few. The configuration of logs by CodeSonar is also very fantastic which I've not seen anywhere else. I also like the GUI interface of CodeSonar because it's very user friendly and the tool also shows very precise logs and results."
"The most valuable features of CodeSonar were all the categorized classes provided, and reports of future bugs which might occur in the production code. Additionally, I found the buffer overflow and underflow useful."
"The most valuable feature of CodeSonar is the catching of dead code. It is helpful."
"There is nice functionality for code surfing and browsing."
"The tool is very good for detecting memory leaks."
"CodeSonar’s most valuable feature is finding security threats."
"It has been able to scale."
"The main feature, and one of the most important, is the static code analysis. We are able to complete an analysis of the security flaws with this platform. It's very good at helping us find and fix flaws."
"Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers."
"The innovative features offered by Veracode are excellent."
"Code analysis tool to help identify code issues before entered into production."
"The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs."
"It has improved the quality of code being delivered for test and its vulnerability resolutions timeline has improved."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"It pinpoints the errors. Its accuracy is very interesting. It also elaborates on flaws, meaning it provides you with details about what is valid or not and how something can be fixed."
"It would be beneficial for the solution to include code standards and additional functionality for security."
"In terms of areas for improvement, the use case for CodeSonar was good, but compared to other tools, it seems CodeSonar isn't a sound static analysis tool, and this is a major con I've seen from it. Right now, in the market, people prefer sound static analysis tools, so I would have preferred if CodeSonar was developed into a sound static analysis tool formally, in terms of its algorithms, so then you can see it extensively used in the market because at the moment, here in India, only fifty to sixty customers use CodeSonar. If the product is developed into a sound static analysis tool, it could compete with Polyspace, and from its current fifty customers, that number could go up to a hundred."
"There could be a shared licensing model for the users."
"CodeSonar could improve by having better coding rules so we did not have to use another solution, such as MISRA C."
"The scanning tool for core architecture could be improved."
"It was expensive."
"In a future release, the solution should upgrade itself to the current trends and differentiate between the languages. If there are any classifications that can be set for these programming languages that would be helpful rather than having everything in the generic category."
"I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. That is really the only complaint, but in all reality we have a massive Java application that needs to be scanned. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it." That is probably the nature of the beast, and I'm actually pretty accepting of that time frame, but since it's a complaint that I get, faster is always better. I don't necessarily think that the speed is bad as it is, just that faster would be better."
"We get some false positives with JavaScript languages like React, TypeScript, and Angular. The problem is rooted in the build process of JavaScript, not the code we are using. This is something we spend lots of time trying to resolve. When we point to a specific library and review that on the code, we can see it is a part of the build that isn't going into production. It's only a part of the build because JavaScript has a different build process."
"In some cases we use their APIs; they're not as rich as I would like."
"Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement. They do not have the most robust access to data. That would be a bit more beneficial to a lot of our clients as well as our actual in-house staff. I've been talking to our program management at Veracode about that, and that is actually on their radar to have that improved, I think actually this year."
"To be able to upload source codes without being compiled. That’s one feature that drives us to see other sources."
"We have approximately 900 people using the solution. The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it."
"I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use."
"It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period."
CodeSonar is ranked 22nd in Application Security Tools with 7 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. CodeSonar is rated 8.2, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CodeSonar writes "Nice interface, quick to deploy, and easy to expand". 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 ". CodeSonar is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Snyk, Fortify on Demand and OWASP Zap. See our CodeSonar vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Code Analysis 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.
