GitHub and GitGuardian compete in the DevOps tools category. GitHub's robust community support and cost-effective plans give it an edge, but GitGuardian stands out with its specialized security features and low false-positive rate in secrets detection.
Features: GitHub provides extensive source code management, seamless integration with various DevOps tools, and a robust community for open-source projects. It offers advanced security options, collaboration features such as version control and code reviews, and automation support through GitHub Actions. GitGuardian focuses on secrets detection and remediation, featuring tools like Internal Monitoring and Dev in the Loop for immediate developer notifications. Users appreciate its broad detection capabilities and effectively low false-positive rate.
Room for Improvement: GitHub could improve integration with CI/CD tools, user-friendliness, and expand its project management capabilities. There are also concerns about security, UI, large files support, and integration complexity. GitGuardian could enhance its user interface and automate historical scans. It could benefit from more integrations with developer IDEs, automation of incident management, and better mobile support. Improved onboarding processes and expanded customization for security checks would enhance both platforms.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GitHub supports Public, Hybrid, and Private cloud environments, with a strong open-source community for user support. Users often resolve issues independently via forums. GitGuardian focuses on cloud deployments with some on-premise options, offering reliable support but could improve deployment ease and historical scan automation. GitHub generally benefits from a larger user base for community-driven support, while GitGuardian relies more on structured support channels.
Pricing and ROI: GitHub offers a range of options from free open-source to enterprise plans, making it cost-effective for small teams. Pricing is based on user and repository numbers, with free tiers for public projects. GitGuardian's pricing is reasonable for its specialized features, though costly for large teams due to its user-based licensing model. Both platforms provide solid ROI by managing code efficiently and enhancing security, though GitGuardian's niche security focus may justify its higher expenses for businesses prioritizing code security.
I can certainly say that we have saved significant time and resources in terms of people and automation.
The majority of our incidents for critical detectors and important secret types are remediated automatically or proactively by developers through GitGuardian's notification system, without security team involvement.
I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten.
I would rate the technical support as excellent.
The technical support from GitHub is generally good, and they communicate effectively.
Some forums help you get answers faster since you just type in your concern and see resolutions from other engineers.
I have not used GitHub's technical support extensively because there are many resources and a robust knowledge base available due to the large user community.
In terms of scalability, I would rate it around a ten out of ten, as it handles all the repositories and commit activity we have.
I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability.
Currently, what GitGuardian Platform is doing works effectively.
We have never had a problem with scalability, so I would rate it at least eight to nine.
GitHub is more scalable than on-prem solutions, allowing for cloud-based scaling which is beneficial for processing large workloads efficiently.
We set up a lot of the repository, so GitGuardian is a required check.
The SaaS platform has experienced two significant moments of downtime or instability in the last six months, requiring notices and retrospectives.
I would rate the stability of the GitGuardian Platform as excellent with no downtimes.
If a skilled developer uses it, it is ten out of ten for stability.
It provides a reliable environment for code management.
GitHub is mostly stable, but there can be occasional hiccups.
Another thing that would be good to see is some more metrics on the usage of the GitGuardian pre-push hooks.
The self-healing activity by developers isn't reflected in the analytics, requiring us to collect this data ourselves.
We are looking for better metrics and audit data, wanting more features such as knowing which users are creating the most secrets or committing the most secrets, what repository, what directory, and who is not checking in secrets.
One area for improvement in GitHub could be integration with other tools, such as test management or project management tools.
I would like to see some AI functionality included in GitHub, similar to the features seen in GitLab, to enhance productivity.
When solving merge conflicts, it would be helpful to have tooltips within the actions to know what changes could happen next when resolving a conflict.
Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.
It's fairly priced, as it performs a lot of analysis and is a valuable tool.
Normally, GitHub is not expensive, but it would be welcome if it reduces costs for developing countries.
The pricing of GitHub is reasonable, with the cost being around seven dollars per user per month for private repositories.
The pricing of GitHub depends on the choice of solutions, such as building one's own GitHub Runners to save money or using GitHub's Runners with extra costs.
One of the best features of the solution is the ability to use pre-push hooks.
A high number of our exposures are remediated by developers before security needs to step in, as the self-healing playbook process engages them automatically.
GitGuardian Platform performs the capability to detect secrets in real time exceptionally, as it activates from the commit and can detect it immediately.
The pull request facility for code review.
GitHub Actions allow for creating multiple jobs that run in different stages such as build, test, and deploy, which enable better visibility and control over the deployment pipeline.
For branching, it works well, especially in an agile environment.
GitGuardian helps organizations detect and fix vulnerabilities in source code at every step of the software development lifecycle. With GitGuardian’s policy engine, security teams can monitor and enforce rules across their VCS, DevOps tools, and infrastructure-as-code configurations.
Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by more than 500,000 developers and is the #1 app in the security category on the GitHub Marketplace. GitGuardian is also trusted by leading companies, including Instacart, Genesys, Orange, Iress, Beyond Identity, NOW: Pensions, and Stedi.
GitGuardian Platform includes automated secrets detection and remediation. By reducing the risks of secrets exposure across the SDLC, GitGuardian helps software-driven organizations strengthen their security posture and comply with frameworks and standards.
Its detection engine is trained against more than a billion public GitHub commits every year, and it covers 350+ types of secrets such as API keys, database connection strings, private keys, certificates, and more.
GitGuardian brings security and development teams together with automated remediation playbooks and collaboration features to resolve incidents fast and in full. By pulling developers closer to the remediation process, organizations can achieve higher incident closing rates and shorter fix times.
The platform integrates across the DevOps toolchain, including native support for continuously scanning VCS platforms like GitHub, Gitlab, Azure DevOps and Bitbucket or CI/CD tools like Jenkins, CircleCI, Travis CI, GitLab pipelines, and many more. It also integrates with ticketing and messaging systems like Splunk, PagerDuty, Jira and Slack to support teams with their incident remediation workflows. GitGuardian is offered as a SaaS platform but can also be hosted on-premise for organizations operating in highly regulated industries or with strict data privacy requirements.
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.