No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Veracode vs Virsec Security Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Veracode
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
Virsec Security Platform
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (94th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Veracode is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 4.6%, down 10.3% compared to last year.
Virsec Security Platform, on the other hand, focuses on Vulnerability Management, holds 0.3% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.6%
SonarQube16.3%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other69.2%
Application Security Tools
Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Virsec Security Platform0.3%
Wiz6.4%
Tenable Nessus4.9%
Other88.4%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration
Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.
KevinMcCarthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Manager at Klearnow
Helps with Zero-day protection
We use the solution for Zero-day protection.  The solution stops any kind of remote code execution.  The tool's dashboard needs to load since it is not responsive and takes time to load.  I have been using the product for a year.  I would rate the tool's stability a six out of ten.  I would…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Provides the ability to understand the black zones in our system."
"The user interface is excellent, the code review process is quick and provides great analytics to understand our code better, and the SAST scan is high-speed."
"The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with."
"Veracode is one of very few options out there, and the very best."
"The source composition analysis had very good reporting."
"Using Veracode has helped to improve our organization in that we now have discipline in terms of periodically scanning our systems."
"Our development team use this solution for static code analysis and pen testing."
"Veracode has helped immensely with developer security training and in building developer security skills."
"We use the solution for Zero-day protection."
 

Cons

"The interface is basic and has room for improvement."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"The dynamic scanning feature works, but it doesn't work properly for some of our applications. It doesn't allow us to skip. They claim that we can do this, but it doesn't work when we're scanning the applications in real-time."
"Searching for applications in Veracode is a little bit difficult. We have to minimize the length of an application's name to 47 characters. It would be good if this limit could be increased so that an application's name can be properly reflected in Veracode."
"While Veracode is way ahead of its competitors on Gartner Magic Quadrant, it's a bit more expensive than Fortify."
"The Web portal, at times, is not necessarily intuitive."
"For one or two particular applications, the dynamic code analysis can take too much time. Sometimes, it takes three days or more."
"There were some additional manual steps or work involved that we should not have needed to do."
"The tool's dashboard needs to load since it is not responsive and takes time to load."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"Without getting too specific, I'd say the average yearly cost is around $50,000. The costs include licensing and maintenance support."
"Its pricing is fair."
"There is a fee to scale up the solution which I consider expensive."
"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."
"Licensing is pretty flexible. It's a little bit weird, it's by the size of the binary, which is a strange way to license a product. So far they've been pretty flexible about it."
"The pricing is a little on the high side but since we combine our product into one suite, it is easy to do and works well for us."
"Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need."
"I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
24%
Construction Company
14%
Healthcare Company
13%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?
I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
Virsec
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Broadcom, Allstate, Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about SonarSource Sàrl, Checkmarx, Veracode and others in Application Security Tools. Updated: February 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.