For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it. Its pricing should be based on the size of the application or organization. For a startup organization, they can provide credit-based pricing. They don't need to reduce the price. AWS, Google, and other vendors do the same where they don't reduce the price, but they give credits. I have been in the industry for 15 years, and I have seen that people don't like to change technologies for many reasons. For the first year or the first 18 months, customers can explore the product completely free. If the first year is free and you are onboarded, you would stay with it if it does the job. If the product is doing its job and adding security value, there is no reason to change it in the second year, and you are also ready to pay because, in the first year, you have tested that it is working fine. A company that has used it for the first year would definitely need it in the second year because they keep adding code to the codebase. Another option is that, like Cloudflare, they provide a very slashed rate. Cloudflare onboards everyone at a very cheap price, but when you start exploring the actual use cases, they start adding.
It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better. It is quite important to have fixed or static costs because it is easier for our financing. Compared to other solutions, Veracode is more expensive but offers a lot for free.
The thing that I'll go back to is when one of my mentors said to me "Evan, security is a critical aspect of any organization. People don't always believe in it. And the best way to sell it is to explain what could go wrong." So when we compare what could go wrong, having a third-party vulnerability, like a graph library, such as the one that Equifax used, which led to a $3 million lawsuit, and their reputation was destroyed. When you compare that to paying $8,000 for an application, it's a no-brainer. Once the reputation of an organization has been tarnished, that's it. The whole thing is completely over. Really everyone loses faith and once people lose trust, it's almost impossible to get people to believe in a vision. It's definitely worth it considering what could go wrong. The DevOps Mantra is to always be prepared for what could go wrong. Most things are going to go wrong. Having a static cost gives people confidence. And once people start using it, if the price changes, then that's going to be dependent on how much they're getting out of it.
It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it for only 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator. The static cost model is not that important. Veracode works on a subscription model, so we have to pay for it every year.
Principle Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Consultant
2020-12-20T08:24:00Z
Dec 20, 2020
Checkmarx is a very good solution and probably a better solution than Veracode, but it costs four times as much as Veracode. You need an entire team to maintain Checkmarx. You also need on-premise servers. So, it is a solution more for an enterprise customer. If you have a small- to medium-sized company, Checkmarx is very hard to use, because it takes so many resources. From this point of view, I would certainly recommend for now, Veracode for small- to medium-sized businesses. Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors. Veracode provides a very good balance between a working solution and cost.
Senior Director, Quality Engineering at Everbridge, Inc.
Real User
2020-11-20T11:13:00Z
Nov 20, 2020
The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning. Veracode recently included SCA pricing and support pricing as a factor of the SAST scan count cost. When using microservices, you may need to negotiate pricing based on actual application counts where microservices are usually a portion of an application.
The solution recently doubled in price over the past year, which is why I've decided to move away from it. The price jump doesn't make sense. It's not like there was a sudden influx in new features or advancements. Without getting too specific, I'd say the average yearly cost is around $50,000. The costs include licensing and maintenance support.
Veracode is a leading application security platform that helps organizations to develop and deliver secure software. Veracode's solution provides comprehensive capabilities for static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, and manual penetration testing.
Veracode's static analysis solution scans source code for various security vulnerabilities, including common web application attack vectors, injection flaws, cross-site scripting, and insecure direct object references....
Veracode is expensive. But the solution is worth it.
For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it. Its pricing should be based on the size of the application or organization. For a startup organization, they can provide credit-based pricing. They don't need to reduce the price. AWS, Google, and other vendors do the same where they don't reduce the price, but they give credits. I have been in the industry for 15 years, and I have seen that people don't like to change technologies for many reasons. For the first year or the first 18 months, customers can explore the product completely free. If the first year is free and you are onboarded, you would stay with it if it does the job. If the product is doing its job and adding security value, there is no reason to change it in the second year, and you are also ready to pay because, in the first year, you have tested that it is working fine. A company that has used it for the first year would definitely need it in the second year because they keep adding code to the codebase. Another option is that, like Cloudflare, they provide a very slashed rate. Cloudflare onboards everyone at a very cheap price, but when you start exploring the actual use cases, they start adding.
It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better. It is quite important to have fixed or static costs because it is easier for our financing. Compared to other solutions, Veracode is more expensive but offers a lot for free.
The thing that I'll go back to is when one of my mentors said to me "Evan, security is a critical aspect of any organization. People don't always believe in it. And the best way to sell it is to explain what could go wrong." So when we compare what could go wrong, having a third-party vulnerability, like a graph library, such as the one that Equifax used, which led to a $3 million lawsuit, and their reputation was destroyed. When you compare that to paying $8,000 for an application, it's a no-brainer. Once the reputation of an organization has been tarnished, that's it. The whole thing is completely over. Really everyone loses faith and once people lose trust, it's almost impossible to get people to believe in a vision. It's definitely worth it considering what could go wrong. The DevOps Mantra is to always be prepared for what could go wrong. Most things are going to go wrong. Having a static cost gives people confidence. And once people start using it, if the price changes, then that's going to be dependent on how much they're getting out of it.
It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it for only 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator. The static cost model is not that important. Veracode works on a subscription model, so we have to pay for it every year.
Checkmarx is a very good solution and probably a better solution than Veracode, but it costs four times as much as Veracode. You need an entire team to maintain Checkmarx. You also need on-premise servers. So, it is a solution more for an enterprise customer. If you have a small- to medium-sized company, Checkmarx is very hard to use, because it takes so many resources. From this point of view, I would certainly recommend for now, Veracode for small- to medium-sized businesses. Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors. Veracode provides a very good balance between a working solution and cost.
The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning. Veracode recently included SCA pricing and support pricing as a factor of the SAST scan count cost. When using microservices, you may need to negotiate pricing based on actual application counts where microservices are usually a portion of an application.
I have no idea what the licensing costs on the solution are. Our IT team handles the details.
I do not remember the licensing costs off hand. I would probably estimate it to be between 50,000 to 75,000 in our case.
The solution recently doubled in price over the past year, which is why I've decided to move away from it. The price jump doesn't make sense. It's not like there was a sudden influx in new features or advancements. Without getting too specific, I'd say the average yearly cost is around $50,000. The costs include licensing and maintenance support.