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

Veracode vs Virsec Security Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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) (3rd), Container Security (14th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd)
Virsec Security Platform
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (105th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (32nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Veracode is designed for Application Security Tools and holds a mindshare of 4.2%, down 6.9% compared to last year.
Virsec Security Platform, on the other hand, focuses on Vulnerability Management, holds 0.4% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode4.2%
SonarQube10.2%
Checkmarx One6.8%
Other78.8%
Application Security Tools
Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Virsec Security Platform0.4%
Wiz4.7%
Qualys Exposure Management4.0%
Other90.9%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

YS
Software Development Engineer II at Rocket Software
Monthly scans have provided baseline security but still miss critical vulnerabilities
Veracode can improve to stand in this market. They do not have to do much; they just need to improve their UI experience and add more documentation within the application rather than just creating documentation pages on different websites. They need to ensure their web application guides whoever uses it. Since whoever uses Veracode must be a technical person, they just need to guide them to the actual points. They can also improve their security capabilities by adding more filters to identify what vulnerabilities their application has. They need to improve their scanning engine to scan for more critical defects. Also, the integration part can be enhanced by adding features to integrate with a CLI, such as introducing a CLI version or a Jenkins plugin. If such features exist, they should show it as a pop-up, signaling that they have a new feature. Currently, it feels Veracode from two years ago is still the same, so that is something Veracode needs to improve. They can improve the security part. Some of the severe security issues were never caught by Veracode in the reports. In fact, I have never seen any high or critical severity issues pop up in my Veracode report. That is one thing they can improve on their scanning ability to catch high severity issues. Next is integration; Veracode does not provide any tools to integrate with Jenkins or CLI. I do not even know if there is any CLI for Veracode that I can use to automate in my pipeline. The last thing is the UI interface that they have, as it is a bit confusing. I remember we did not have the capability to handle authentications of our internal application. We had to write Selenium code using a Selenium IDE. To write a Selenium script for a Veracode scan, you have to download a Selenium IDE, record it, and then paste that file into Veracode. I can see that Selenium IDE is already decommissioned, so it is no longer used by anyone. Still, we have to use it because Veracode only supports that kind of file for Selenium to automate. They can add more ways to authenticate our application using normal JavaScript or Python or Shell script. I feel these are the four main points. They can document it more by adding tooltips into the application that explain why a parameter is required and what other options are available. For the same example with the Selenium script, they can add a link to their documentation that explains what other kinds of scripts can be written for authentication. I feel they can also make the UI more intuitive so that whoever uses it can guide themselves, as whoever uses Veracode is already a technical person.
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

"From this point of view, I would certainly recommend for now, Veracode for small- to medium-sized businesses."
"Reduced dependency on the security team to run scans."
"Veracode has positively impacted our organization by giving us a good chance to focus on development as we don't need to focus as much on compliance-related matters after we have ensured this level of security on the security posture management for our application."
"Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC."
"It makes it very easy to track and monitor activity."
"Veracode does not require any maintenance."
"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."
"Overall, Veracode has affected all our application security in a very strong, positive way, and I look forward to using their products and technology to continuously improve our security best practices."
"We use the solution for Zero-day protection."
 

Cons

"The scanning is a little slow, but other than that it's fine. It's usually when the binaries get up into the multi-hundred megabyte size."
"Veracode can be slow at times and has room for improvement, which may cause delays in our products and prolonged static scans."
"Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement."
"Veracode can improve the licensing model as it is a bit confusing."
"An area for improvement in Veracode is the time that it takes to scan large projects, as that makes it difficult to fit into our CI/CD pipelines."
"The solution has issues with scanning. It tries to decode the binaries that we are trying to scan."
"It would help if there were a training module that would explain how to more effectively integrate the SAST product into the build tool, Jenkins or Bamboo."
"I would like to see more technical support for some of the connectors, some more detailed diagrams or run-books on how to install some of the stuff; more hand-holding in the sense of understanding our environment."
"The tool's dashboard needs to load since it is not responsive and takes time to load."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Veracode's pricing is competitive."
"It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool."
"Pricing-wise, I find it a bit expensive because it's based on the number of users requesting access to Veracode."
"They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works."
"From a cost perspective, it seems okay, although we will probably evaluate alternatives next time it's up for renewal because for us, it's a relatively high cost, and we want to make sure that we are using our resources most appropriately."
"There is a fee to scale up the solution which I consider expensive."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent."
"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.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
25%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise46
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 is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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: October 2026.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.