"There are quite a few features that are very reliable, like the newly launched Veracode Pipelines Scan, which is pretty awesome. It supports the synchronous pipeline pretty well. We been using it out of the Jira plugin, and that is fantastic."
"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."
"You can easily integrate it with Azure DevOps. This is an added value because we work with Azure DevOps. Veracode is natively supported and we don't have to work with APIs."
"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."
"It's comprehensive from a feature standpoint."
"It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail."
"Good static analysis and dynamic analysis."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that there were not a whole lot of false positives, at least on the codebases that I looked at."
"The app analysis is the most valuable feature as I know other solutions don't have that."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Jenkins."
"I encountered a bug with Coverity, and I opened a ticket. Support provided me with a workaround. So it's working at the moment, or at least it seems to be."
"One of the most valuable features is Contributing Events. That particular feature helps the developer understand the root cause of a defect. So you can locate the starting point of the defect and figure out exactly how it is being exploited."
"It provides reports about a lot of potential defects."
"Coverity is scalable."
"The solution is scalable."
"We set the solution up and enabled it and we had everything running pretty quickly."
"The results and the dashboard they provide are good."
"The license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine."
"The inventory management as well as the ability to identify security vulnerabilities has been the most valuable for our business."
"The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should."
"We use a lot of open sources with a variety of containers, and the different open sources come with different licenses. Some come with dual licenses, some are risky and some are not. All our three use cases are equally important to us and we found WhiteSource handles them decently."
"Its ease of use and good results are the most valuable."
"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."
"Sometimes the scans are not done quickly, but the solutions that it provides are really good. The quality is high, but the analysis is not done extremely quickly."
"The policies you have, where you can tune the findings you get, don't allow you not to file tickets about certain findings. It will always report the findings, even if you know you're not that concerned about a library writing to a system log, for example. It will keep raising them, even though you may have a ticket about it. The integration will keep updating the ticket every time the scan runs."
"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 training lab is not very user-friendly and takes a long time to set up."
"The product has issues with scanning."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
"I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use."
"The solution could use more rules."
"It should be easier to specify your own validation routines and sanitation routines."
"Coverity is far from perfection, and I'm not 100 percent sure it's helping me find what I need to find in my role. We need exactly what we are looking for, i.e. security errors and vulnerabilities. It doesn't seem to be reporting while we are changing our code."
"Its price can be improved. Price is always an issue with Synopsys."
"Ideally, it would have a user-based license that does not have a restriction in the number of lines of code."
"Right now, the Coverity executable is around 1.2GB to download. If they can reduce it to approximately 600 or 700MB, that would be great. If they decrease the executable, it will be much easier to work in an environment like Docker."
"Coverity is not stable."
"The solution lacks the code snippet part."
"At times, the latency of getting items out of the findings after they're remediated is higher than it should be."
"It would be good if it can do dynamic code analysis. It is not necessarily in that space, but it can do more because we have too many tools. Their partner relationship support is a little bit confusing. They haven't really streamlined the support process when we buy through a reseller. They should improve their process."
"We have ended our relationship with WhiteSource. We were using an agent that we built in the pipeline so that you can scan the projects during build time. But unfortunately, that agent didn't work at all. We have more than 500 projects, and it doubled or tripled the build time. For other projects, we had the failure of the builds without any known reason. It was not usable at all. We spent maybe one year working on the issues to try to make it work, but it didn't in the end. We should be able to integrate it with ID and Shift Left so that the developers are able to see the scan results without waiting for the build to fail."
"I rated the solution an eight out of ten because WhiteSource hasn't built in a couple of features that we would have loved to use and they say they're on their roadmap. I'm hoping that they'll be able to build and deliver in 2022."
"The turnaround time for upgrading databases for this tool as well as the accuracy could be improved."
"I would like to see the static analysis included with the open-source version."
"It should support multiple SBOM formats to be able to integrate with old industry standards."
Application security starts with secure code. Find out more about the benefits of using Veracode to keep your software secure throughout the development lifecycle.
Coverity is ranked 11th in Application Security with 7 reviews while Mend is ranked 7th in Application Security with 11 reviews. Coverity is rated 8.0, while Mend is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Coverity writes "Straightforward to install and reports few false positives, but it should be easier to specify your own validation and sanitation routines". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mend writes "Easy to use, great for finding vulnerabilities, and simple to set up". Coverity is most compared with SonarQube, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, Checkmarx, Klocwork and HCL AppScan, whereas Mend is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Snyk, Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle and Qualys Web Application Scanning. See our Coverity vs. Mend report.
See our list of best Application Security 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.
