Snyk Reviews

At a high level, Fugue extends and augments compliant reporting capabilities provided by major cloud suppliers. It enhances the visibility, again, from a compliance standpoint, into cloud-based or multi-cloud-based environments.

The solution offers good flexibility in customization. From a compliance and visibility reporting perspective, the fact that it can be applicable for multi-cloud environments is very helpful. It's not a single cloud supplier. It's most of them. The fact that it provides visibility, compliance-related visibility, that is not readily available by cloud suppliers themselves, is its most valuable aspect. It's the additional set of compliance reporting and compliance visibility features that Fugue provides that is what makes it so very useful.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. 

I can't comment if there are missing features at this time. For the last six to eight months I didn't work with Fugue. I don't have an up-to-date product roadmap to comment on what is or is not available, what they do or do not provide. I would need to review their current roadmap to be able to accurately comment on what is or is not available.

Fugue capabilities are not well understood on the market. If there was one thing they could improve, it would be to basically explain in simple terms to market what it is they do. Right now, understanding what they do requires substantial experience and expertise. It wasn't a challenge for me to identify this area, however, I'm the exception. Generally speaking, there is not sufficient understanding in the broad market of what Fugue does. This is the area they need to focus on.

The general input I have is that there is an opportunity for them to better align with other similar tools and better align with similar capabilities that cloud suppliers deliver natively. What happens is they extend and augment capabilities that cloud suppliers offer. There is additional integrational and operational benefits that can be realized in how they extend and how they position themselves as compared to what cloud suppliers deliver.

I've used the solution for some time. It's likely been more than a year. There were a couple of specific projects which were two months long in terms of duration. I'd work with it on and off for those.

There was no issue with scaling at the time I was deploying it. I did not have a chance to work with it at a really industrial scale, such as an enterprise scale. It was a fairly limited deployment, a fairly limited project. I did not see any issues with the scalability of the architecture or the environment itself.

I worked with their professional services organization. I did not have a chance to go to support, so I cannot comment on the efficiency or effectiveness of the support organization. I didn't interact with them.

The setup was actually fairly simple and they can start delivering value in a very short time. That said, t business value is a subjective thing. The business value itself is something that they need to explain. It's not self-evident.

There were no issues related to the setup. It's a cloud-native solution. It's available nearly instantaneously. Being able to interpret the results and being able to consume the value that they provide and understand the value that they provide, however, needs to be better explained to the market.

The Fugue solution can be handled by a relatively small team - so long as they understand it.

In general, for maintenance, the team is relatively small, however, the level of understanding that the team needs to possess, to have, in order to effectively use it, is quite high.

I don't have direct visibility and the pricing, from what I understand, is negotiable. It's not an effective area for me to comment on.

Considering that they deliver a unique set of capabilities, the money that they charge is likely worth it. That said, one needs to understand the value to fully appreciate it.

We are consultants. We don't have any alliance or partnership relationship. It's similar to the relationship with other technology suppliers that we have in the same space.

I'd advise others to definitely try it out. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I use Snyk to review my code. 

Snyk helps me pinpoint security errors in my code. 

Sometimes we have problems upgrading a library because it's too old. The only thing we can do is use another library. 

It is easy to scale Snyk once you install it, but it depends on your cloud service provider. Everything will scale smoothly if you have the correct cloud server settings. 

I rate Snyk support eight out of 10. 

Positive

Setting up Snyk is relatively complex if you're working with multiple developers who use different IDEs. It can be complicated if, for example, one developer uses Visual Studio and another developer uses a different editor. 

Snyk is cloud-based. We use Bamboo for CI/CD, and we had problems integrating Snyk with it. Ultimately, we got the two solutions to work together, but it was difficult.

I rate Snyk three out of 10 for affordability. The price is relatively high, but it's worth it. 

I rate Snyk seven out of 10. 

The product helps me with security vulnerability detection. 

I am impressed with the product's security vulnerability detection. My peers in security are praising the tool for its accuracy in detecting security vulnerabilities. The product is very easy to onboard. It doesn't require a lot of preparation or prerequisites. It's a bit of a plug-and-play as long as you're using a package manager or, for example, you are using a GitHub repository. And that is an advantage for this tool because developers don't want to add more tools to their current use.

The tool needs improvement in license compliance. I would like to see the integration of better policy management in the product's future release. When it comes to the organization I work for, there are a lot of business units since we are a group of companies. Each of these companies has its specific requirements and its own appetite for risk. This should be able to reflect in flexible policies. We need to be able to configure policies that can be adjusted later or overridden by the business unit that is using the product. 

We haven't had big issues in terms of the product's stability. 

The product is scalable. In our company, we have a lot of tools that are used for product and software development. We have been able to onboard them and scale up. However, I have to say that when it comes to displaying a dashboard at the organizational level to see all the vulnerabilities, it takes a bit of time to load, which is annoying.

The product has a fantastic tech support team. We actually have a Slack channel with them, and the customer success managers are a click away from providing us with the latest functionalities and updates if there are any interruptions to the service. So there has always been a transparent dialogue between us; we see them as partners in this journey.

Positive

I wasn't involved in the tool's setup, but from my experience or the experience of my colleagues, the process was positive. I didn't hear them have any horror stories from the days when they set it up.

The solution is less expensive than Black Duck.

I would rate the product a seven out of ten. Snyk is a fantastic tool for security vulnerability detection in third-party open-source software. You can use this product if your focus is on security vulnerability. On the other hand, if you don't want your developers to invest too much time in documentation and reading white papers on configuring the tool to work for them, you need to use this product. 

I would give them extra points for the transparent communication with the customer and their openness towards improving their product. And I think they have a lot of potential to improve and become a great SCA tool.

Snyk's major use case is to check our code for vulnerabilities that may exist in the dependencies or the security of the code. This allows developers to identify and address potential security issues that can be resolved.

Snyk offers two key advantages for organizations. Firstly, it allows all issues to be fixed in one centralized location, streamlining the process of addressing vulnerabilities. Secondly, Snyk categorizes the level of vulnerability into high, medium, and low, which helps organizations prioritize which issues to tackle first. This feature ensures that low-priority vulnerabilities are not addressed before high-priority ones.

One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs.

As of now, I have been using Snyk for two weeks. Also, I am using the latest version of the solution. So, my company is an end-user and customer of the solution.

I haven't faced any stability issues at all while using the solution. Stability-wise, it is a fine product. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

Only three users are using the solution in my company. Even though there are around fifteen developers in my company, since the solution is still in the integration stage, many developers can't use it yet. So, once the seniors get accustomed to Snyk, then the juniors will follow.

From a scalability standpoint, I haven't explored the solution yet.

I haven't faced any issues that I can take to them. So, all the documents Snyk provides have solutions to the potential issues one could face. I did not need to use the internet to check for the resolutions to my issues with the solution.

I have used SonarQube previously. We still use SonarQube and might migrate to Snyk completely in the future. Also, we may even consider using both parallelly.

SonarQube notifies us of the error. It also mentions the line where that error is and gives the exact line of code along with the line number. While it doesn't give any solution, it does give an alternate solution. So, it will just show what can be removed, where the vulnerabilities are, and what needs to be changed.

In Snyk, it notifies its user what an old version is and how to take it to another stable version. It also notifies its users about the vulnerabilities in a version before suggesting a new version that doesn't have such vulnerabilities.

Integration in Snyk was easier since, during SonarQube's integration process in our company, we always faced technical issues during its setup or while trying to operate it. Snyk is a very user-friendly tool, giving it a huge plus point.

SonarQube detects in a code if any line is commented or any variable is defined but not used. Snyk, on the other hand, doesn't detect such details but detects vulnerabilities on a higher level.

The deployment model for the solution is a cloud-based one.

Regarding Snyk's deployment, we have integrated everything with Jenkins so that the deployment happens automatically. Also, in Jenkins itself, we have integrated Snyk. The deployment process for Snyk took less than an hour. Once a person goes through the documents provided by Snyk, the deployment process becomes easy. The deployment process in my company was carried out without needing any help from external sources.

Presently, my company uses an open-source version of the solution. The solution's pricing can be considered quite reasonable owing to the features they offer. There are no extra costs attached to the solution because there is no need for extra hardware or other software since it has been integrated with the Jenkins CICD automation pipeline, and the dashboard gives everything in one place.

Upon reviewing Snyk's operations, I found it helpful, although not entirely comprehensive. Specifically, it provides valuable information regarding the status of vulnerabilities and the details of dependencies used in our projects. The solution also can identify issues that could be resolved manually or through alternative means. Snyk gives all the required information, while SonarQube doesn't. In SonarQube, data is presented in a different format that is required to be reviewed by us on a line-by-line basis. One of Snyk's strengths was its ability to consolidate all identified issues into a single location.

Currently, our company has not utilized any expensive solutions. So, we opted for SonarQube's open-source version. In the future, if the need arises, we may consider purchasing a solution. However, as this is for a proof-of-concept (POC), I am currently exploring trial or open-source versions, which are free of cost. If a solution is successfully integrated into our projects and our developers become familiar, we may consider purchasing a particular solution. For now, we are focusing on finding a solution that meets our needs for the POC without incurring any unnecessary expenses.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. Overall, I rate the solution a seven and a half out of ten. To be more specific, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Our customers use Snyk for infrastructure scanning, SaaS testing, and continuous vulnerability scans. 

Our customers find container scans most valuable. They are always talking about it.

Offering API access in the lower or free open-source tiers would be better. That would help our customers. If you don't have an enterprise plan, it becomes challenging to integrate with the rest of the systems. Our customers would like to have some open-source integrations in the next release.

I have known about Snyk for about two years.

Snyk is a stable solution. I don't think we faced any issues with it.

Snyk is a scalable product. 

We used to work with SonarQube, which is fast. We also used CoreOS Clare and explored Prisma. The open-source and self-hosted solutions are better suited for smaller startups. They only have to spend on setting it up as running is entirely free.

The initial setup is straightforward because it's a SaaS solution. I didn't have any problems implementing this solution. I think installing and deploying this solution took me about 15 minutes.

I implemented this solution. 

The pricing is acceptable, especially for enterprises. I don't think it's too much of a concern for our customers.  Something like $99 per user is reasonable when the stakes are high.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Snyk an eight.

Snyk is used to manage open-source risks in security and licenses.

The most valuable feature of Snyk is the software composition analysis.

The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improved.

Having bolting scans into a single solution can be useful, maybe snippet capabilities of reading the actual scan rather than reading the manifest can be very useful.

I have been using Snyk for several years.

The stability of Snyk is good.

Snyk is highly scalable. The only thing running on the customer side is a command-line interface(CLI). The entire results are been presented on a software as a service-based platform. It doesn't matter if I'm running 10 or 10,000 systems. It's scalable because Snyk has a supportive system, which is not the customer's system, it's Snyk's system.

I have not used the support from Snyk. However,  customers are sharing their experiences, and they have said the support is good.

The initial setup of Snyk needs their assistance and support. It's not a Windows application that you click next, but it's not rocket science. The implementation typically takes a few days to complete.

The company that purchases Snyk typically does the implementation. There are only a few people needed for the deployment of the solution.

Snyk allows developers and development managers to identify open-source vulnerabilities in every stage. As a result, the fix is much cheaper than identifying something on production. It's up to 100 times less expensive. If you fix a few bugs at an early stage, you cover all the license fees for the annual subscription of Snyk. There is a high return on investment potential.

The license model is based on the number of contributing developers. Snyk is expensive, for a startup company will most likely use the community edition, while larger companies will buy the licensed version. The price of Snyk is more than other SLA tools.

I rate Snyk an eight out of ten.

Snyk acts as an SCA and also as a SAST. It's like a mix and match.

Our deployment is more of a hybrid deployment. It is 70% cloud and 30% on-prem. The majority of Snyk is a cloud-based solution, but we do have instances where we have it on-prem for various reasons.

The advantage of Snyk is that Snyk automatically creates a pull request for all the findings that match or are classified according to the policy that we create. So, once we review the PR within Snyk and we approve the PR, Snyk auto-fixes the issue, which is quite interesting and which isn't there in any other product out there. So, Snyk is a step ahead in this particular area. In the development phase, there are lots of dependencies from one module to another, and if it has to be a manual fix, it takes forever for developers to fix it. We do utilize both functionalities. Sometimes, I get the developers to look at the issues and get them manually fixed, and sometimes, based on the criticality and severity of the finding, I just approve the PR, and Snyk automatically fixes it. I don't need to worry about the dependencies.

All such tools should definitely improve the signatures in their database. Snyk is pretty new to the industry. They have a pretty good knowledge base, but Veracode is on top because Veracode has been in this business for a pretty long time. They do have a pretty large database of all the findings, and the way that the correlation engine works is superb. Snyk is also pretty good, but it is not as good as Veracode in terms of maintaining a large space of all the historical data of vulnerabilities.

I have been using this solution for about two years. 

It is easily scalable, and it is pretty easy to integrate and manage. However, the tuning is what requires a lot of attention. Snyk, Veracode, Netsparker, or any other similar solution definitely needs somebody to tune it to work properly. Tuning is a little bit tricky, but that's the nature of such solutions.

I had to work with them initially during the integration phase. Their support was okay. It was not that good, but it was also not that bad. There is room for improvement because the support works based on the categories of requests. Along with the categories, if they have an option for the sensitivity or the urgency of issues, it would be really helpful for users.

It was pretty easy. 

It is pretty expensive. It is not a cheap product.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Snyk is a code analysis tool. It is a vulnerability finding tool. We use it for those purposes. We use this tool to detect issues particular to users.

Snyk is configured on our local ID environment. So our team and many other teams use it to do a scan before they deploy anything in the production.

There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best.

Feature wise, I like it so far. Maybe a little bit early to call, but feature wise, I'm okay with it. It may be a little bit expensive, but otherwise, it is a good tool.

I don't have any complaints. Thankfully, I had help in the decision-making and the initial integration. After that, the actual development and ops teams are using it. So if they are facing issues or they have any concerns, I'm not sure about that.

Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive.

I have been using Snyk for a year.

It is a stable solution.

In our organization I would say more than 50 and less than a hundred are regularly using Snyk.

Tech support is good. They are reliable and available. Some of the teams are using Snyk and they are not complaining about support. The support is better and they are available whenever we need. We can reach out to them for help.

The initial setup was neither complex nor easy, I would say it was okay.

It took a few weeks.

A few people helped us with the initial setup.

Our experience with them was that they're really good.

Snyk is a security analysis tool. We have other tools, some dynamic security analytics tools, and other tools set up, and we wanted to compare which one we should use. We have Contrast, Coverity, and Snyk, and now we are planning to keep one. That was the main reason I had downloaded the code from your site and from many other sites. In the end we are planning to keep Snyk.

Snyk is good. I like to use it. I like to use Snyk over Contrast.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Snyk an eight.

There is no complaint here. 

We are using Snyk along with SonarQube, and we are currently more reliant on SonarQube.

With Snyk, we've been doing security and vulnerability assessments. Even though SonarQube does the same when we install the OWASP plugin, we are looking for a dedicated and kind of expert tool in this area that can handle all the security for the code, not one or two things.

We have the latest version, and we always upgrade it. Our code is deployed on the cloud, but we have attached it directly with the Azure DevOps pipeline.

It is a nice tool to check the dependencies of your open-source code. It is easy to integrate with your Git or source control. 

It has a nice dashboard where I can see all the vulnerabilities and risks that they provided. I can also see the category of any risk, such as medium, high, and low. They provide the input priority-wise. The team can target the highest one first, and then they can go to medium and low ones. 

Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue.

It is easy to integrate without a pipeline, and we just need to schedule our scanning. It does that overnight and sends the report through email early morning. This is something most of the tools have, but all of these come in a package together.

It never failed, and it is very easy, reliable, and smooth. 

It would be great if they can include dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning features. Checkmarx and Veracode provide dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning, but Snyk doesn't do that. That's the reason there is more inclination towards Veracode, Checkmarx, or AppScan. These are a few tools available in the market that do all four types of scanning: static, dynamic, interactive, and run-time.

We have to integrate with their database, which means we need to send our entire code to them to scan, and they send us the report. A company working in the financial domain usually won't like to share its code or any information outside its network with any third-party provider. Such companies try to build the system in-house, and their enterprise-level licensing cost is really huge. There is also an overhead of updating the vulnerability database.

It has been more than one and a half years. 

It is stable. I haven't had any problems with its stability.

It is easy. We have integrated Snyk with two to four projects, and we do run scanning every week to check the status and improvement in the quality of our code.

Currently, only I am using this solution because I'm handling all the stuff related to infrastructure and DevOps stuff in my company. It is a very small company with 100 to 200 people, and I am kind of introducing this tool in our organization to have enterprise-level stuff. I have used this tool in my old organization, and that's why I am trying to implement it here. I am the only DevOps engineer who works in this organization, and I want to integrate it with different code bases.

I've never used their technical support.

It is really straightforward. If someone has set up a simple pipeline, they can just integrate in no time.

Pricing-wise, it is not expensive as compared to other tools. If you have a couple of licenses, you can scan a certain number of projects. It just needs to be attached to them.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years, and I definitely like it. It is awesome in whatever it does right now.

It is a really nice tool if you really want to do the dependency check and security scanning of your code, which falls under static code analysis. You can implement it and go for it for static code analysis, but when it comes to dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning, you should look for other tools available in the market. These are the only things that are missing in this solution. If it had these features, we would have gone with it because we have already been using it for one and a half years. Now, the time has come where we are looking for new features, but they are not there.

Considering the huge database they have, all the binaries it scans, and other features, I would rate Snyk an eight out of 10. 

We have been considering Snyk in order to improve the security of our platform, in terms of Docker image security as well as software dependency security. Ultimately, we decided to roll out only the part related to software dependency security plus the licensing mechanism, allowing us to automate the management of licenses.

We have integrated Snyk in the testing phase, like in the testing environment. We are in the process of rolling the solution out across our entire platform, which we will be doing soon. The APIs have enabled us to do whatever we have needed, and the amount of effort for the integration on our end has been reasonable. The solution works well and should continue to work well after the full-scale roll-out.

We expect to get additional benefits in terms of validating our software security. 

The solution does its job to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly. So, it is working well. 

• The platform's ease of use
• Good support from the customer success team 
• A transparent solution
• Functionally coherent and powerful

The overall goal is to have a high security platform delivered in an easy way. This is in terms of the effort that we have to put in as well as cost. From this perspective, Snyk looks like the most promising solution. So far, so good.

It is easy for developers to use. The documentation is clear as well as the APIs are good and easily readable. It's a good solution overall.

We would like to have upfront knowledge on how easy it should be to just pull in an upgraded dependency, e.g., even introduce full automation for dependencies supposed to have no impact on the business side of things. Therefore, we would like some output when you get the report with the dependencies. We want to get additional information on the expected impact of the business code that is using the dependency with the newer version. This probably won't be easy to add, but it would be helpful.

We have been using it for about three months.

So far, we have had no concerns regarding the solution's stability. We have had no downtime.

The scalability is okay.

When it comes to direct users who are managing it or doing the integration for Snyk, then there are a few developers from the team who own the solution.

The goal is to roll this out across all services and supported technologies. Once we finish our rollout phase, then we expect to have full adoption. Thanks to our internal integration, teams will just be seeing the updated dependencies whenever they are available. So, Snyk will be doing the hard magic behind the scenes for everyone.

The customer success team is a solid team. I liked their approach from the very beginning and after signing the contract. They kept things looking good, which is a good sign.

We haven't had an opportunity to validate some hard cases with the technical support yet.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was easy and nicely documented.

We have been managing the deployment with other initiatives that we are running. We haven't had major obstacles with the deployment so far.

For our implementation strategy, we first worked on the plan of, "How do you want to integrate it?" We investigated the best setup, then we just went to the implementation phase from the research phase.

One software engineer is enough for deployment and maintenance. We had to split the duties of this between several people, but one person is enough. 

Keep extracting knowledge from the Snyk team. They are very helpful during the process, so make sure to use them.

The more security that we have, the more confident we are. You never know when you will be actually attacked. Hopefully, this will not be validated anytime soon in reality. However, by doing our penetration tests, we are validating the system on a regular basis, which will also help improve our overall confidence in this area. 

It gives us peace of mind that there is nothing hidden that hasn't been taken care of. That is also important.

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to fix and find problems.

The pricing is reasonable.

For the Docker security feature use case, we decided to go with an open source solution (Trivy), because it is sufficient for our needs. Integration with Trivy was cheap and easy, which makes it cost-effective. Our current use case was simple enough that the existing open source tool was sufficient. Maybe there are use cases that are more advanced and sophisticated, where the open source solution would not be sufficient for an organization. In such cases, the benefits from the paid version would be worth the money. I think it boils down to the specific use case of a company.

We were not able to find a sufficient, elegant solution for the dependencies part of our use case. That is why we invested in our partnership with Snyk. After evaluating paid and open source solutions, Snyk was selected as the best tool.

I have heard from my team that it has a comprehensive database. Hopefully, it will work well during the production usage. Our hopes are high. So far, we haven't seen any downsides.

We have our internal processes for maintaining and updating dependencies in general. We will be incorporating any suggested updates coming from Snyk into our internal, already-existing process and platform, with some additional effort from our teams. Hopefully, there won't be any major additional effort. Hopefully, cases needing additional effort for issues will be rare.

We are using the SAST version of Snyk. Its complexity is reasonable.

I would rate it as an eight out of 10.