We performed a comparison between PingSafe and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"Cloud Native Security is a tool that has good monitoring features."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers."
"Before Veracode, the application was deployed to the production server and there would be a lot of bugs and issues. Once we implemented the Veracode scan, the full deployment issues were drastically reduced."
"It is a good product for creating secure software. The static code analysis is pretty good and useful."
"Provides the capability to track remediation and the handling of identified vulnerabilities."
"The Security Labs [is] where I have the developers training and constantly improving their security, and remembering their security techniques. That way, they are more proactive and make sure things are correct. They're faster because they're doing it in the first place."
"Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools."
"It provides security of different Shadow IT activities in our environment, especially around application development and website hosting."
"It scans for the OWASP top-10 security flaws at the dynamic level and, at the static level, it scans for all the warnings so that developers can fix the code before we go to UAT or the next phase."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"Customized queries should be made easier to improve PingSafe."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"Maybe container runtime security could be improved."
"The current version of the application does not support testing for API."
"A high number of false positives are reported and this should be reduced."
"Static scanning takes a long time, so you need to patiently wait for the scan to achieve. I also think the software could be more accurate. It isn't 100 percent, so you shouldn't completely rely on Veracode. You need to manually verify its findings."
"It needs better APIs, reporting that I can easily query through the APIs and, preferably, a license model that I can predict."
"While Veracode is way ahead of its competitors on Gartner Magic Quadrant, it's a bit more expensive than Fortify. It's a good solution for the cost, but if we had a high budget, we would go with Checkmarx, which is much better than Veracode."
"An area for improvement I found in Veracode is the connectivity because currently, my company uses a plugin for the dev-ops cloud-based connectivity. A pretty helpful feature would be if Veracode gives a direct code for connecting to the Oracle server directly and authenticating it via a unique server."
"I would like Veracode to add more language support."
"From what we have seen of Veracode's SCA offering, it is just average."
PingSafe is ranked 8th in Container Security with 52 reviews while Veracode is ranked 4th in Container Security with 194 reviews. PingSafe is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of PingSafe writes "It is easy to use, requires no configuration, and is agentless". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". PingSafe is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz and Orca Security, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our PingSafe vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container 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.
