FOSSA vs Sonatype Lifecycle comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
FOSSA Logo
3,069 views|1,863 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Sonatype Logo
6,427 views|3,564 comparisons
89% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between FOSSA and Sonatype Lifecycle based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed FOSSA vs. Sonatype Lifecycle Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Being able to know the licenses of the libraries is most valuable because we sell products, and we need to provide to the customers the licenses that we are using.""The most valuable feature is definitely the ease and speed of integrating into build pipelines, like a Jenkins pipeline or something along those lines. The ease of a new development team coming on board and integrating FOSSA with a new project, or even an existing project, can be done so quickly that it's invaluable and it's easy to ask the developers to use a tool like this. Those developers greatly value the very quick feedback they get on any licensing or security vulnerability issues.""FOSSA provided us with contextualized, easily actionable intelligence that alerted us to compliance issues. I could tell FOSSA exactly what I cared about and they would tell me when something was out of policy. I don't want to hear from the compliance tool unless I have an issue that I need to deal with. That was what was great about FOSSA is that it was basically "Here's my policy and only send me an alert if there's something without a policy." I thought that it was really good at doing that.""I found FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine to be accurate and that it was tuned appropriately to the settings that we were looking for. The policy engine is pretty straightforward... I find it to be very straightforward to make small modifications to, but it's very rare that we have to make modifications to it. It's easy to use. It's a four-category system that handles most cases pretty well.""Policies and identification of open-source licensing issues are the most valuable features. It reduces the time needed to identify open-source software licensing issues.""One of the things that I really like about FOSSA is that it allows you to go very granular. For example, if there's a package that's been flagged because it's subject to a license that may be conflicts with or raises a concern with one of the policies that I've set, then FOSSA enables you to go really granular into that package to see which aspects of the package are subject to which licenses. We can ultimately determine with our engineering teams if we really need this part of the package or not. If it's raising this flag, we can make really actionable decisions at a very micro level to enable the build to keep pushing forward.""I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results.""What I really need from FOSSA, and it does a really good job of this, is to flag me when there are particular open source licenses that cause me or our legal department concern. It points out where a particular issue is, where it comes from, and the chain that brought it in, which is the most important part to me."

More FOSSA Pros →

"The data quality is really good. They've got some of the best in the industry as far as that is concerned. As a result, it helps us to resolve problems faster. The visibility of the data, as well as their features that allow us to query and search - and even use it in the development IDE - allow us to remediate and find things faster.""It scans and gives you a low false-positive count... The reason we picked Lifecycle over the other products is, while the other products were flagging stuff too, they were flagging things that were incorrect. Nexus has low false-positive results, which give us a high confidence factor.""The value I get from IQ Server is that I get information on real business risks. Is something compliant, are we using the proper license?""Its engine itself is most valuable in terms of the way it calculates and decides whether a security vulnerability exists or not. That's the most important thing. Its security is also pretty good, and its listing about the severities is also good.""The REST API is the most useful for us because it allows us to drive it remotely and, ideally, to automate it.""Due to the sheer amount of vulnerabilities and the fact that my company is still working on eliminating all vulnerabilities, it's still too early for me to say what I like most about Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle. Still, one of the best functions of the product is the guidance it gives in finding which components or applications have vulnerabilities. For example, my team had a vulnerability or a CVE connected to Apache last week. My team couldn't find which applications had the vulnerability initially, but using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle helped. My team deployed new versions on that same day and successfully eliminated the vulnerabilities, so right now, the best feature of Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle is finding which applications have vulnerabilities.""The scanning capability is its most valuable feature, discovering vulnerable open source libraries.""The IQ server and repo are the most valuable."

More Sonatype Lifecycle Pros →

Cons
"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from.""I would like the FOSSA API to be broader. I would like not to have to interact with the GUI at all, to do the work that I want to do. I would like them to do API-first development, rather than a focus on the GUI.""I want the product to include binary scanning which is missing at the moment. Binary scanning includes code and component matching through dependency management. It also includes the actual scanning and reverse engineering of the boundaries and finding out what is inside.""The technical support has room for improvement.""For open-source management, FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine is easy to use, but the list of licenses is not as complete as we would like it to be. They should add more open-source licenses to the selection.""On the dashboard, there should be an option to increase the column width so that we can see the complete name of the GitHub repository. Currently, on the dashboard, we see the list of projects, but to see the complete name, you have to hover your mouse over an item, which is annoying.""I would like more customized categories because our company is so big. This is doable for them. They are still in the stages of trying to figure this out since we are one of their biggest companies that they support.""One thing that can sometimes be difficult with FOSSA is understanding all that it can do. One of the ways that I've been able to unlock some of those more advanced features is through conversations with the absolutely awesome customer success team at FOSSA, but it has been a little bit difficult to find some of that information separately on my own through FAQs and other information channels that FOSSA has. The improvement is less about the product itself and more about empowering FOSSA customers to know and understand how to unlock its full potential."

More FOSSA Cons →

"Another feature they could use is more languages. Sonatype has been mainly a Java shop because they look after Maven Central... But we've slowly been branching out to different languages. They don't cover all of them, and those that they do cover are not as in-depth as we would like them to be.""Fortify's software security center needs a design refresh.""The user interface needs to be improved. It is slow for us. We use Nexus IQ mostly via APIs. We don't use the interface that much, but when we use it, certain areas are just unresponsive or very slow to load. So, performance-wise, the UI is not fast enough for us, but we don't use it that much anyway.""They could do with making more plugins for the more common integration engines out there. Right now, it supports automation engine by Jenkins but it doesn't fully support something like TeamCity.""It's the right kind of tool and going in the right direction, but it really needs to be more code-driven and oriented to be scaled at the developer level.""The reporting capability is good but I wish it was better. I sent the request to support and they raised it as an enhancement within the system. An example is filtering by version. If I have a framework that is used in all applications, but version 1 is used in 50 percent of them and version 2 in 25 percent, they will show as different libraries with different usage. But in reality, they're all using one framework.""If you look at NPM-based applications, JavaScript, for example, these are only checkable via the build pipeline. You cannot upload the application itself and scan it, as is possible with Java, because a file could change significantly.""One of the things that we specifically did ask for is support for transitive dependencies. Sometimes a dependency that we define in our POM file for a certain library will be dependent on other stuff and we will pull that stuff in, then you get a cascade of libraries that are pulled in. This caused confusing to us at first, because we would see a component that would have security ticket or security notification on it and wonder "Where is this coming in from?" Because when we checked what we defined as our dependencies it's not there. It didn't take us too long effort to realize that it was a transitive dependency pulled in by something else, but the question then remains "Which dependency is doing that?""

More Sonatype Lifecycle Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch. It is very much a "you get what you pay for" scenario. Regardless of the price, I highly recommend FOSSA."
  • "Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team."
  • "FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it."
  • "The solution's cost is a five out of ten."
  • More FOSSA Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Its pricing is competitive within the market. It's not very cheap, it's not very expensive."
  • "We're pretty happy with the price, for what it is delivering for us and the value we're getting from it."
  • "Pricing is comparable with some of the other products. We are happy with the pricing."
  • "The price is good. We certainly get a lot more in return. However, it's also hard to get the funds to roll out such a product for the entire firm. Therefore, pricing has been a limiting factor for us. However, it's a fair price."
  • "The license fee may be a bit harder for startups to justify. But it will save you a headache later as well as peace of mind. Additionally, it shows your own customers that you value security stuff and will protect yourselves from any licensing issues, which is good marketing too."
  • "In addition to the license fee for IQ Server, you have to factor in some running costs. We use AWS, so we spun up an additional VM to run this. If the database is RDS that adds a little bit extra too. Of course someone could run it on a pre-existing VM or physical server to reduce costs. I should add that compared to the license fee, the running costs are so minimal they had no effect on our decision to use IQ Server."
  • "Pricing is decent. It's not horrible. It's middle-of-the-road, as far as our ranking goes. They're a little bit more but that's also because they provide more."
  • "Lifecycle, to the best of my recollection, had the best pricing compared with other solutions."
  • More Sonatype Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results.
    Top Answer:FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it.
    Top Answer:I want the product to include binary scanning which is missing at the moment. Binary scanning includes code and component matching through dependency management. It also includes the actual scanning… more »
    Top Answer:We like the data that Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle consistently delivers. This solution helps us in fixing and understanding the issues a lot quicker. The policy engine allows you to set up different… more »
    Top Answer:Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines.
    Top Answer:I would rate the affordability of the solution as an eight out of ten.
    Ranking
    Views
    3,069
    Comparisons
    1,863
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    282
    Rating
    8.0
    Views
    6,427
    Comparisons
    3,564
    Reviews
    15
    Average Words per Review
    1,056
    Rating
    8.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle, Nexus Lifecycle
    Learn More
    FOSSA
    Video Not Available
    Overview
    Up to 90% of any piece of software is from open source, creating countless dependencies and areas of risk to manage. FOSSA is the most reliable automated policy engine for legal teams to maintain license compliance, security to fix vulnerabilities, and engineering to improve code quality across the entire software supply chain. As the only developer-native open source management platform, FOSSA fully integrates with your existing CI/CD pipeline to provide complete visibility and context earlier in the software development lifecycle. For the first time, teams can collaboratively shift left and audit, analyze, control, and remediate license issues and vulnerabilities right in their existing workflows.

    Sonatype Lifecycle is an open-source security and dependency management software that uses only one tool to automatically find open-source vulnerabilities at every stage of the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Users can now minimize security vulnerabilities, permitting organizations to enhance development workflow. Sonatype Lifecycle gives the user complete control over their software supply chain, allowing them to regain wasted time fighting risks in the SDLC. In addition, this software unifies the ability to define rules, actions, and policies that work best for your organizations and teams.

    Sonatype Lifecycle allows users to help their teams discover threats before an attack has the chance to take place by examining a database of known vulnerabilities. With continuous monitoring at every stage of the development life cycle, Sonatype Lifecycle enables teams to build secure software. The solution allows users to utilize a complete automated solution within their existing workflows. Once a potential threat is identified, the solution’s policies will automatically rectify it.

    Benefits of Open-source Security Monitoring

    As cybersecurity attacks are on the rise, organizations are at constant risk for data breaches. Managing your software supply chain gets trickier as your organization grows, leaving many vulnerabilities exposed. With easily accessible source code that can be modified and shared freely, open-source monitoring gives users complete transparency. A community of professionals can inspect open-source code to ensure fewer bugs, and any open-source dependency vulnerability will be detected and fixed rapidly. Users can use open-source security monitoring to avoid attacks through automatic detection of potential threats and rectification immediately and automatically.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Sonatype Lifecycle software receives high praise from users for many reasons. Among them are the abilities to identify and rectify vulnerabilities at every stage of the SDLC, help with open-source governance, and minimize risk.

    Michael E., senior enterprise architect at MIB Group, says "Some of the more profound features include the REST APIs. We tend to make use of those a lot. They also have a plugin for our CI/CD.”

    R.S., senior architect at a insurance company, notes “Specifically features that have been good include:

    • the email notifications
    • the API, which has been good to work with for reporting, because we have some downstream reporting requirements
    • that it's been really user-friendly to work with.”

    "Its engine itself is most valuable in terms of the way it calculates and decides whether a security vulnerability exists or not. That's the most important thing. Its security is also pretty good, and its listing about the severities is also good," says Subham S., engineering tools and platform manager at BT - British Telecom.

    Sample Customers
    AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent
    Genome.One, Blackboard, Crediterform, Crosskey, Intuit, Progress Software, Qualys, Liberty Mutual Insurance
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company45%
    Legal Firm9%
    Comms Service Provider9%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Manufacturing Company24%
    Computer Software Company19%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Healthcare Company5%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company11%
    Insurance Company11%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company11%
    Government9%
    Manufacturing Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business45%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise45%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise57%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Buyer's Guide
    FOSSA vs. Sonatype Lifecycle
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about FOSSA vs. Sonatype Lifecycle and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    FOSSA is ranked 9th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 12 reviews while Sonatype Lifecycle is ranked 5th in Software Composition Analysis (SCA) with 42 reviews. FOSSA is rated 8.6, while Sonatype Lifecycle is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of FOSSA writes "Compatibility with a wide range of dev tools, web and "C-type", enables us to scan across our ecosystem, including legacy software". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sonatype Lifecycle writes "Seamless to integrate and identify vulnerabilities and frees up staff time". FOSSA is most compared with Black Duck, Snyk, Mend.io, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode, whereas Sonatype Lifecycle is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, GitLab and Sonatype Repository Firewall. See our FOSSA vs. Sonatype Lifecycle report.

    See our list of best Software Composition Analysis (SCA) vendors.

    We monitor all Software Composition Analysis (SCA) 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.