Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitGuardian Platform vs Spirent CyberFlood [EOL] comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 22, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

GitGuardian Platform
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (6th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (5th), Software Supply Chain Security (6th), DevSecOps (3rd), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (3rd)
Spirent CyberFlood [EOL]
Ranking in Application Security Tools
31st
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
29th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 0.9%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent CyberFlood [EOL] is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
GitGuardian Platform0.9%
Spirent CyberFlood0.4%
Other98.7%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Ney Roman - PeerSpot reviewer
Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes
Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.
Jos Badimo - PeerSpot reviewer
Test assurance improves compliance and products with good performance
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one screen most of the time. Even if the system navigates me to another screen, it should effectively return me to the main screen.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."
"It's fantastic. We have checked a couple of other vendors and seen their results, which are quite inferior to the amount of detail that the GitGuardian Platform provides. With instantaneous notifications connected to our Slack platform, it allows us to deal quickly with incidents."
"GitGuardian public leak detection significantly enhances our organization's data security by continuously monitoring public repositories."
"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."
"The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."
"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."
"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."
"The secrets detection and alerting is the most important feature. We get alerted almost immediately after someone commits a secret. It has been very accurate, allowing us to jump on it right away, then figure out if we have something substantial that has been leaked or whether it is something that we don't have to worry about. This general main feature of the app is great."
"CyberFlood is flexible."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"CyberFlood's best features are its user-friendliness and scheduling function."
"The feature I find most valuable is the traffic generator."
"The testing compliance feature is particularly impressive."
"Our customers use it to check for unauthorized file transfer."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in its integration for bug-tracking. It should be more direct. They have invested a lot in user management, but they need to invest in integrations. That is a real lack."
"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."
"I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers."
"We have been somewhat confused by the dashboard at times."
"I would like to see improvement in some of the user interface features... When one secret is leaked in multiple files or multiple repositories, it will appear on the dashboard. But when you click on that secret, all the occurrences will appear on the page. It would be better to have one secret per occurrence, directly, so that we don't have to click to get to the list of all the occurrences."
"I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing."
"The main thing for me is the customization for some of the healthcare-specific identifiers that we want to validate. There should be some ability, which is coming in the near future, to have custom identifiers. Being in healthcare, we have pretty specific patterns that we need to match for PHI or PII. Having that would add a little bit extra to it."
"Automated Jira tickets would be fantastic. At the moment, I believe we have to go in and click to create a Jira ticket. It would be nice to automate."
"CyberFlood's accessibility and support for multiple browsers could be better."
"The initial setup is not straightforward and can be quite challenging."
"The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation."
"Sometimes, when you configure parameters the hardware can't run, it will get stuck at those points without telling you what happened. It would be helpful if the error reporting provided more details about why the test setting is not running. It would be nice if there were a space in the hardware module for you to add some external hardware for more rigorous testing."
"I would also like to see updates on a more frequent schedule."
"The solution needs more ports, more speed, and more gigabytes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We don't have a huge number of users, but its yearly rate was quite reasonable when compared to other per-seat solutions that we looked at... Having a free plan for a small number of users was really great. If you're a small team, I don't see why you wouldn't want to get started with it."
"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."
"It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are very happy with the value we get."
"The pricing for GitGuardian is fair."
"The pricing is reasonable. GitGuardian is one of the most recent security tools we've adopted. When it came time to renew it, there was no doubt about it. It is licensed per developer, so it scales nicely with the number of repos that we have. We can create new repositories and break up work. It isn't scaling based on the amount of data it's consuming."
"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."
"I am only aware of the base price. I do not know what happened with our purchasing team in discussions with GitGuardian. I was not privy to the overall contract, but in terms of the base MSRP price, I found it reasonable."
"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."
"CyberFlood is reasonably priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...
What needs improvement with Spirent CyberFlood?
The user interface could be improved to facilitate easier navigation. The most significant issue I encounter with the solution is the user interface. It would be beneficial if I could remain on one...
What is your primary use case for Spirent CyberFlood?
I have been using the solution for a year now. The customers I work with are focused on both custom test assurance and test automation. The solution is utilized in the financial services sector and...
What advice do you have for others considering Spirent CyberFlood?
The language barrier and time difference pose significant issues with customer support. The price is competitive. The biggest benefits I find are test assurance, the reliability of the test results...
 

Also Known As

GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring
CyberFlood Virtual, Spirent Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing, Mu Dynamics Application Security Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.
Digicel
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: October 2025.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.