We performed a comparison between GitGuardian Public Monitoring and GitHub 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."The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for."
"One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository... With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots."
"GitHub is convenient and easy to use."
"Even if I'm not in the office, I can access and work on my code from anywhere with my account credentials."
"GitHub's version control is valuable."
"The most valuable features are GitHub are the standard features, they are very useful."
"The most important feature of GitHub is the maintainability of the versions of the code."
"GitHub provides good time reduction and this is what I value the most."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that it's cloud-based, and we don't have to manage an on-premises server to use it."
"It is really simple to set up."
"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."
"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."
"The UI is a little outdated, so that could be improved."
"As of now, if I would like to learn about GitHub or its features, I would have to look on YouTube. It would be nice if they were able to send out a newsletter with explanations of new features that they are offering and what features are available."
"The security point should be addressed in the next release and scaling is also an issue."
"We are not able to access GitHub from our VPN."
"If something has to be moved into approvals, and if they don't approve it in a few hours, then they should move the approval request to some other user, or they should have a way to escalate it."
"Could be more user friendly."
"It is currently only from the development perspective. It doesn't have features related to project management and testing. It is not like Azure. So, there is a lot of room for improvement. It is a version control product, and it would be good if they can come up with a complete DevOps product."
"There is room for improvement in terms of interface."
More GitGuardian Public Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
GitGuardian Public Monitoring is ranked 27th in Application Security Tools with 2 reviews while GitHub is ranked 13th in Application Security Tools with 64 reviews. GitGuardian Public Monitoring is rated 9.0, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of GitGuardian Public Monitoring writes "Helps us prioritize remediation tasks efficiently, improves our overall security visibility, and is effective in detecting and alerting us to security leaks quickly". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". GitGuardian Public Monitoring is most compared with Snyk, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and Fortify on Demand. See our GitGuardian Public Monitoring vs. GitHub report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.