We performed a comparison between SUSE NeuVector 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."The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The coding standards in our development group have improved. From scanning our code we've learned the patterns and techniques to make our code more secure. An example would be SQL injection. We have mitigated all the SQL injection in our applications."
"The best feature is definitely the detailed reports. It provides code-related queries in the order of high, medium, and low depending on what we need to do. Veracode is user-friendly as well."
"This is a great tool for learning about potential vulnerabilities in code."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"The security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics."
"This static analysis helps ensure a secure application rollout across all environments."
"It helps me to detect vulnerabilities."
"I like Veracode's API. You can put it into a simple bash script and run your own security testing from your MacBook in less than 15 minutes."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"The technical support service has room for improvement."
"The negative that I found is that it has a subscription-based model."
"Veracode is costly, and there is potential for improvement in its pricing."
"It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow."
"The scanning could be improved, because some scans take a bit of time."
"Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives."
"The zip file scanning has room for improvement."
"We have approximately 900 people using the solution. The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it."
SUSE NeuVector is ranked 20th in Container Security with 7 reviews while Veracode is ranked 4th in Container Security with 194 reviews. SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". 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 ". SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Sysdig Falco and Sysdig Secure, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our SUSE NeuVector 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.
