I have been using Veracode for the last two years, which is one of the security scans that is part of our organization and is mandatory for all products to be scanned by this tool.

We use Veracode for DAST scans, which involves dynamic scanning of our web application. Veracode only supports web application scanning for security vulnerabilities, and it performs black box testing on our application for security issues and cybersecurity testing methodology.

Our product is in the backup and recovery space and has a web interface for it. Since it is a relatively new product that we have, we perform Veracode scans every month to ensure that whatever we are developing is in compliance with Veracode standards. To identify any early vulnerabilities we introduce in our development process, we conduct monthly scans. Initially, I used to perform scans manually by logging into Veracode and following the step-by-step procedure to execute a scan, but now we have automated it somewhat. Although Veracode does not provide a tool for automating scans, we have found a workaround using Selenium to automate it ourselves. We are using Veracode to identify early security issues in our development.

One benefit is that we have automated the scanning process. There is a first layer of security where every month Veracode scans run and share a report on whether there are any high severity vulnerabilities in our application. This is beneficial as it provides a base-level security layer that helps us identify entry-level issues early on using Veracode. This tool is able to track basic issues.

Veracode seems to be a basic security testing tool because we have observed that Veracode was not able to find some actually severe vulnerabilities in our application. When we later conducted penetration testing with a dedicated pen testing team, we found many security issues that I feel should have already been identified through Veracode if it were doing its dynamic testing properly. These vulnerabilities were relatively simple for Veracode to find in our application, but they were not found by Veracode and instead were found by the other team. Even another product called ZAP, the ZAP tool from OWASP, which we have used, identified issues that Veracode could not identify.

Honestly speaking, Veracode is just our compliance scan that we have to do but don't want to do, as it is part of our compliance testing. Regarding any particular feature, I will say the Veracode UI is the only noteworthy aspect. It is not that easy to use, but if you spend some time, you will be okay with it, though it is not that good. I honestly do not feel its UI is comfortable or its reporting is clear because it is not really understandable what exact issue we have. They should make it simpler. In my opinion, Veracode lacks significantly in most parts, including its UI, its reporting, ease of use, and the features that it provides. I do not have any favorite feature and just use it for the sake of our compliance.

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.

I have not seen any outages because it is on our private cloud. However, I have observed that it is not that reliable in terms of security because Veracode was not able to find some security threats in our application that existed since the product was developed. I feel it is less reliable, considering that Veracode has the responsibility to find common issues such as path traversal vulnerabilities or issues with broken authentication mechanisms. There were security issues I feel should have been caught by Veracode, but it does not instill the reliability I expect.

I have never experienced its scalability. I have worked on a single product and performed scans for only one product, so I am not sure how it works at scale.

I never got a chance to deal with customer support. Most of the issues I faced were resolved within our organization. I have never contacted them.

In my previous company, I used SonarQube, which we implemented into our pipelines and was comparatively easy. However, in this company, they do not use SonarQube; they use Veracode. I did not switch solutions; I just switched companies, which is why I am now using Veracode.

If I had a chance to replace it, I would go with SonarQube or something else because it has more features.

Veracode seems to be a basic security testing tool because we have observed that it was not able to find some actually severe vulnerabilities in our application. When we later conducted penetration testing with a dedicated pen testing team, we found many security issues that I feel should have already been identified through Veracode if it were doing its dynamic testing properly. These vulnerabilities were relatively simple for Veracode to find in our application, but they were not found by Veracode and instead were found by the other team. Even another product called ZAP, the ZAP tool from OWASP, which we have used, identified issues that Veracode could not identify.

Veracode is just our compliance scan that we have to do but do not want to do, as it is part of our compliance testing. Regarding any particular feature, I will say the Veracode UI is the only noteworthy aspect. It is not that easy to use, but if you spend some time, you will be okay with it, though it is not that good. I honestly do not feel its UI is comfortable or its reporting is clear because it is not really understandable what exact issue we have. They should make it simpler. In my opinion, Veracode lacks significantly in most parts, including its UI, its reporting, ease of use, and the features that it provides. I do not have any favorite feature and just use it for the sake of our compliance.

I do not feel Veracode has improved any efficiency in our project. It is just another release check that we have to perform. It did not add any improvement to our efficiency or security life cycle; it is just there. My overall review rating for this product is 6 out of 10.

My main use case for Veracode is related to code scanning as well as third-party library scanning. In addition to my main use case with Veracode, I also used it for penetration testing.

The best features Veracode offers in my experience include product discovery, specifically library discoveries as well as remediation timelines, pull requests, and others. I also explored sandboxes.

The Remediation Timelines feature helps us in our workflow by ensuring we abide by certain compliance regulations, and it helped us prioritize high or critical vulnerabilities beforehand so that we pass the compliance checks.

For Library Discovery with Veracode, it was effective in terms of finding transitive dependencies, which allowed us to identify what libraries we need to update and recognize both direct and indirect vulnerabilities.

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. Veracode helped us focus on development by reducing our manual work, and the suggestions for fixes were valuable.

Veracode could be improved in terms of the UI platform as it could be more seamless, and if they allow different sessions in different browsers at the same time or in different tabs that would help tremendously. I feel Veracode doesn't need any additional improvements beyond what we have discussed.

I have used Veracode for about two years in my previous organization.

Veracode is stable for me with no issues with uptime or reliability that I have experienced.

Veracode handles growth and increased usage effectively.

The customer support with Veracode is good, as I have interacted with their support team. I would rate the customer support of Veracode an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Before using Veracode, we used SonarQube.

We did see a return on investment with Veracode, as we segregated our remediation efforts, which reduced our time to delivery as well as the number of engineers needed to help us in delivering a secure solution.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Veracode; we directly moved to Veracode.

I would advise others looking into using Veracode to go for code scanning as well as library scans, and I would recommend adopting it. I would rate this review an eight out of ten.

We use the scan and code scanning functionality. Those are the main ones. I just changed my role, so this company is using Veracode, but I've been using it for quite some time before joining this new company. It is currently only managing the source code review. We have other tools that we integrate as such as infrastructure as code, container security, cloud misconfiguration reviews, and others. So it's part of the overall security posture. I can't say that it's solely for our entire security posture because it just manages a subset of one of the security requirements, which is the source code review.

It has met the company's requirements. Nowadays, we are talking about AI code generation. The company is required to leverage the existing code scan to see whether it can support scanning the code that is generated from GenAI before pushing that code to the developers. The developer wouldn't know whether this code is secure or not. Usually, we do the static scan first, but now with a code generator, we want to ensure that it generates secure code.

It did the job. Just before production, we did a scan and ensured that there were no critical or high-criticality issues before going to production. I think that helps to sanitize the code without going into a peer review. We have an automatic scan that catches all these things first, so it's beneficial.

This is especially true for the library because most of these static code scans or software component analyses scan the third-party library that has a CVE or CVSS finding. But if it's a custom-built library that isn't known to the public, it's unclear whether there's a vulnerability or not. Currently, it lacks the ability to trigger on those. We probably have to use a different solution for that.

There should be a feature where we can actually scan code that has been generated by GenAI, such as ChatGPT or Copilot. When they generate this code, they should have some kind of third-party integration feature that can suggest to us, 'This code is clean' or 'this code is good to be used for the developer.'

We are also looking at Black Duck. They introduced a new feature. We were testing on this secure code for AI, so they do have some tools that we are currently exploring to see whether they can do secure AI code.

Regarding remediation, based on my experience, the recommendation from Veracode on remediation is quite helpful. It gives valid reasoning, and the recommendation is fixed.

The developers actually understand how to fix that. However, some of the recommendations, such as upgrading a certain library to version XYZ, sometimes don't go deeper because some of these libraries are not as simple as just changing the version to fix them. There are interdependencies with other third-party components.

Sometimes, when the recommendation asks to upgrade the version to XYZ, when we actually upgrade it, there will be another issue with other things. We usually face difficulty with that one. Sometimes we take an exemption because we can't upgrade this without breaking certain things, so we decide to go for the risk exception.

I just changed my role, so this company is using Veracode, but I've been using it for quite some time before joining this new company.

The stability is acceptable overall.

I didn't get involved much with asking them questions. During the initial phase when we started integrating, they were very helpful, but after they deployed the license and everything, we haven't reached out to them to ask any other questions. It's gone into autopilot. Once you have the license, everything just continues as it is.

In my last company, they used Veracode, and then they transitioned to Snyk. The price point was the first priority we looked at. Secondly was the integration—whether it had deeper integration with our system, and was easy for our developers to enroll and use. After a trial of 12 months with Veracode, we decided to move to Snyk.

Previously, we did a comparison between Veracode, Synopsys (which is Black Duck), and Snyk. We did our own internal review. Veracode needs to shift to a more modern approach because it still feels traditional in its way of doing code scanning compared with others, such as Snyk. They still use a base app, although they have a web version as well, but the integration part could be more seamless. I'm comparing it side-by-side with Snyk, as I'm also a heavy user of Snyk. Those aspects can be improved.

The integrated IDE tool enables users to get instant feedback in real-time on the code itself, rather than waiting for it to go through the CI/CD pipeline and get the result. They can instantly review their code on demand, which is quite beneficial.

For my previous company, when they first adopted source code review, they went for the open-source option first. I always advocate for people to go with the open-source option to understand what the features are and how exactly the source code scanning looks. Once comfortable with it, or if certain features are needed, then look for the enterprise version. Sometimes for different companies, especially small businesses, they couldn't afford Veracode because of the steep price.

Regarding integration, apps such as Jira and Confluence are important. The main thing was that it's fully and deeply integrated with the user and the repository, like Confluence. Every time there's a report, we can immediately generate a ticket from Snyk to Jira. It helps the developer get notified about issues after the scan. Then they fix the issue, tag the ticket as resolved, and once it's marked as resolved, we will do the rescan.

As a beginner, the interface is quite straightforward. People will not get confused. The technical report is professional and can be used by regulators. I can simply export it as a PDF and then share it with a regulator or any auditor for their review.

Regarding mobile code support, such as iOS, Kotlin, and others, the results were not really promising. For Java and C#, it's very good. They are pioneers in that. But for mobile development, if you're a mobile company that builds mobile apps and you have iOS, Objective-C, Swift, and Kotlin, that area needs to be polished.

I rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

We have used Veracode only for third-party libraries until now. We have automated that and have onboarded the Dev team to directly scan from their pipeline. We have integrated the CI/CD in that way. We try to see whether the third-party libraries they have been using are safe versions, and if not, we are able to guide them along. For static scan, we primarily use Fortify. With Veracode, I do not have much experience because Fortify is our main tool.

We are the security personnel. We give proper guidance to the development team and use Veracode whenever scans are in queue or stuck, helping to provide clarity on findings. We have guided the development team with the tool so that, as security auditors, we do not have to do that. We have given guidance to the development team since every release needs code without vulnerable dependencies or vulnerable code. We have guided them in a way that they can access such tools, where they can see the report, and where vulnerable code is present.

Veracode's policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is satisfactory. Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development.

Veracode has impacted our overall security posture because we are from a security background. Every week, we review the dashboards of open findings. We use both Veracode and Fortify findings, as we are using two separate tools - one for SAST and one for dependency-related issues. When we highlight these in our meetings every day, it gives us a picture of the timeline needed to fix the code. We are using that feature regularly, and it helps significantly.

The product could be improved in its reporting. The scanning process could be more streamlined as it has certain limitations when performing manual scans. It has some checks when the content is in ZIP format or other formats, which takes two or three more steps than Fortify does. From a technical point of view, I may not be the best person to answer that since I haven't used it regularly. Other than the scanning process, I think it is acceptable.

I have been using Veracode for a couple of years.

I would rate its stability as a six out of ten based on my personal opinion.

It is scalable. I do not face any issues with the product's scalability.

The technical support by Veracode is good because we have encountered problems before, and the team supported us effectively. For technical support, it deserves a rating of eight out of ten.

It is somewhat complex compared to Fortify. As a Fortify user for almost five years, I find Veracode complex, but others in my team who have used it for eight to nine years don't find such issues. When we were doing manual scans before CI/CD integration, it was easier.

It took approximately four to five months to onboard the solution because it was new to developers as well. There was a certain process to be followed to get access and integrate it into the CI/CD tools. We had to explain the report format to them, showing where they could find vulnerabilities and how they could fix the code, including finding safer versions of libraries and dependencies. This took almost half of 2023, and now in 2025, they do not need our help except for technical problems when there are numerous scans in the pipeline.

The pricing is reasonable compared to other tools.

I haven't used the Veracode Fix feature that produces AI-generated fixes.

The fact that Veracode doesn't scan source code, only binary code, is not a concern because we have certain projects that work with this approach. The AI functionality could be innovative, though I haven't experienced it yet. Regarding the breadth of Veracode's end-to-end testing versus competing solutions, I would rate it as eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

Static scanning is one component of Veracode. That feature we use heavily to scan all the custom code we write weekly. We use another component called software composition analysis to scan all of our open-source packages. These are the two primary use cases that we have for Veracode.

It flags any security flaws or bad practices. Veracode has its own database for many vulnerabilities identified on the SCA side. They use a tool called SourceClear, which validates vulnerabilities in any of these packages. The scanner itself is pretty good at identifying some of the flaws in either the code or the open-source packages.

Our organization is more secure than without Veracode. It has improved our security posture because we're running it. It's hard to gauge what that would be without it because we haven't had any security issues since I joined the company.

Veracode is very good at ensuring compliance with industry standards. It has helped us fix flaws. We know what's there, and there's generally a decent explanation for fixing each flaw. It's a quicker time to market. It's easy to figure out the problem and solve it so that we don't have exposed vulnerabilities in the market.

It has helped developers save time. We generally resolve all our flaws within seven to 20 business days after they are identified. Veracode is crucial to our shift-left strategy. We have automated scans, so we scan all our code every weekend. Today is one of those days, so it's usually the time when we come in, see there's a new problem, and immediately start working on it.

Static scanning and software composition analysis are very helpful. My colleagues and I don't need to be experts on all of those ancillary things, so we can focus more on the business deliverables.

They have a pretty good tool that allows me to run scans of my local integrated development environment. I can find a lot of those flaws a lot sooner than I would if I had to wait for these cloud-based scans. They've come out with some sort of automated fix feature. I haven't used it, but they gave us a demo of it, and that one looks promising. I don't know if it's ready for prime time yet.

The usability isn't good in Veracode. Sometimes, it will show a problem, but it's difficult to go into their tool and figure out where it is. You primarily use a web browser to access their system. It requires a lot of clicks. The static analysis is a separate part of their system from the SCA, so that's a bit difficult. They haven't fully integrated that. It's difficult for the consumer.

We have used Veracode for about five years.

Veracode's stability is 50-50. They deploy new versions of their engine. Recently, the new version identified flaws in the code that were six months to a year old.

Veracode seems to scale pretty well. We scan 60 to 70 applications every weekend without any problems.

I rate Veracode's support engineers eight and their frontline support four. Their engineers are typically good and helpful. If I open a tech support ticket, I usually get a Veracode engineer. Those guys are good. I would rate their other support people poorly.

Veracode is straightforward to deploy. It's a general automated dev ops strategy. It's a responsibility shared among 20 to 30 people.

Veracode is a decent value, depending on what you're trying to achieve. It's pretty good for security flaws.

I rate Veracode six out of 10. I would recommend Veracode to others. The scanner is best in class, but the rest, not so much.

We are quite new to security systems. We have not adopted Veracode at the enterprise level. We are using the GitHub Advanced Security system. We were looking for static code analysis or software configuration analysis tools in the market. That is when we explored Veracode.

We want to centralize our security systems so that any repository that developers are using or creating in our organization follows the same set of standards. We want to have all the security checks and all the static code analysis done at the same level and with one client.

We have had challenges with security because developers come from different organizations and different backgrounds. They have different ways of coding. Based on their experience, they write the code, but there is a very high chance of having vulnerabilities in their code. The PR reviews used to take a lot of time for the reviewer. By implementing such a solution at the enterprise level, we assume that we will save a lot of time for developers and code reviewers because everything will be done by the tool. It will impact us a lot.

Veracode is quite good. It checks the security vulnerabilities in our packages. It discovers them very nicely, but it is not a tool for improving code quality. It does not provide very good static code analysis.

Veracode's policy reporting is fine for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations.

Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development.

Veracode saves our developers' time. They are not doing manual PR reviews. It has saved about 20% of the time because we are still in the adoption phase.

We have a lot of confidential data of clients. We do not want our application to be exposed outside. We have configured a code quality gate, so before production itself, it blocks the PR deployment and allows it once all the security checks are passed.

Veracode is one of the tools that helps to verify external dependencies. Veracode helps a lot there.

One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing. It is a little bit better than DeepSource and SonarQube in terms of software composition analysis and dynamic application testing.

When I was looking into it, my initial impression was that it has a good UI as compared to other competitors.

A negative issue I found is that it has a subscription-based model.

If Veracode can provide static analysis in terms of how we can improve the code quality, it will be quite a good feature.

I have been using Veracode for 2 years.

It is quite stable.

We have not deployed it on our on-premise system, so it is quite scalable. There are no issues with that. I would rate it a 6 out of 10 for scalability.

We have not used their support extensively, but when we were choosing Veracode, I felt that they have a very good support system. The support they provided was good.

I also work with SonarQube. I did not switch from SonarQube to Veracode. We are using a combination of both because SonarQube provides good code quality, but Veracode does not. Veracode provides very good dynamic application testing and software configuration analysis, but SonarQube does not. A combination of both is meeting our needs.

Configuring SonarQube at the cloud level based on our requirements is quite challenging. The support is based on the community. It is not something we consider as an enterprise-level tool, whereas this is not the case with Veracode. These things are better in Veracode.

I was not involved in its deployment. I am in the quality team. The DevSecOps team takes care of its deployment. That team has 8 to 10 people.

It does not require any maintenance. Everything is done automatically by the vendor.

Everything was done in-house.

It is too early for that, but Veracode will save us development effort and time. That will be the return on investment for us in the future. We will be able to measure its overall cost-effectiveness by comparing what we are paying for the service and how much developer time it is saving.

We are still considering it at the enterprise level. It has a subscription-based model. We find its price a little high based on the features it provides. In addition to the standard licensing costs, there are no additional costs.

To someone who is looking at Veracode but is concerned about the price, I would recommend exploring it themselves. They might not need the same features that we need. They might be looking at some other aspects of security. I would recommend exploring it and doing a price evaluation based on their needs.

We also explored DeepSource for some time, but we did not go for it. The functionality that DeepSource provides is somewhere between Veracode and SonarQube. Veracode was a little bit better, and that is why we went for Veracode.

We do not use the free access to Veracode's Application Security Consulting team, but we are planning to use it. We have not yet used the Veracode Fix feature that produces AI-generated fixes. It is a new feature.

The fact that Veracode does not scan source code, only binary code, does not concern us. We are using multiple tools. Veracode is one of them.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a 7 out of 10. We are still adopting Veracode. We have not gone through all the features that Veracode provides. Its rating would probably increase after a few months of use. I would recommend Veracode to others.

We have some applications that connect to external providers or provide external services that users can access from the public internet. We are uploading these applications to Veracode to assess the security threats that our code may pose.

Veracode's analytical capabilities are very good, but I'm not sure if they have prevented security vulnerabilities from going into production in our case because we haven't been using them optimally. We're now working on integrating them into our development pipeline so that we can test applications before they're released. This will also allow us to familiarize ourselves with the sandboxes during development. I believe that if we start using Veracode correctly, it will be very beneficial in preventing security vulnerabilities from going live.

The main benefit of Veracode is the software composition analysis because it helped us identify that we were using some libraries with security flaws. This is important because the individual software components are owned by different smaller teams, and all of those teams contribute to one overall large application. Therefore, there is no single person who would be able to take care of all of the third-party libraries that we are using. Veracode analyzing the libraries that we use is therefore beneficial to us.

Veracode's policy reporting for insurance compliance depends on how our organization uses it. I'm not sure if we're using it to the best of our ability because, for example, I discovered that there is a central space where we can run analysis and sandboxes. Based on what the Veracode expert I spoke to told me, policies should be reported from the danger space, but in our organization, we're reporting them from the Prod CI sandbox. This doesn't seem to be a good solution because the overall application is displayed on the main page, which doesn't reflect what our compliance teams think about our applications. Besides that, I think it comes down to how we're using Veracode within our firm. Overall, I think it's great that the firm can configure certain policies to monitor applications, and the flaw report also enables us to see the flaws that need to be fixed to become compliant, which is a good feature. From Veracode's perspective, everything looks fine.

Over the past year, we discovered a severe security flaw in Lot 4j 1.2.15. We initially believed that this version had been replaced with a newer version that does not have the flaw, but our software composition analysis reports revealed that this is not the case. We still have a few binaries that depend on Lot 4j 1.2.15, which is vulnerable. The software composition analysis results prompted us to schedule a replacement with a new version, which is currently underway.

Veracode has helped us fix flaws effectively. Our security teams enforce monitoring and fix deadlines for reported flaws. If a reported flaw cannot be accepted as a false positive, we must fix it promptly to maintain a high success rate.

Veracode has improved our security posture and will continue to do so as we learn to use the solution more effectively.

I like the way the flaws are reported in the system. It is quite clearly visible where the flaw is coming from, and it is possible to upload the code to see exactly which line was identified as a security threat. I also like the software composition analysis that Veracode provides, because we can see third-party libraries that are used in our software and check if there are any known security flaws in those libraries.

There are many false positives, especially one particular type: reported hard-coded passwords in the code. We do not have hard-coded passwords in our code, but we are using third-party libraries that have variables with passwords in their names. For example, a variable might be named "passwordForCommonFixFile" or "passwordForSecurityStore." Veracode's keyword analysis probably assesses these variables as hard-coded passwords. This is problematic because the false positives are coming from third-party libraries, and we cannot easily check the flaws to see if they are false positives. To fix the problem, we have to compile the code, which we should not have to do. We are forced to accept the false positives because we know from the software and system design that there cannot be hard-coded passwords in the third-party libraries we are using. If the libraries were generic, then there would be no chance that they would have hard-coded passwords for the specific services that we are connecting to. To reschedule the scan, we have to go through some bureaucracy.

Despite the presence of many false positives, we remain confident in Veracode. However, the impact on developer confidence is negative, as it leads to resistance to enforcing certain development processes, including the use of Veracode in the development pipeline. This is understandable, given the complexity of the process required to reschedule the flaw for a single false positive. This process requires approval from the system owner, a senior manager, and the cybersecurity team.

Veracode has increased the work time of our developers because of the false positives.

The area with the most room for improvement is the speed and responsiveness of the query, as it is usually very slow. I am not sure if there is a specific space allocated for us that can cause this, but when I open an application and want to click through multiple scans to see the differences, or if I want to do anything else, everything loads very slowly. This makes it much less user-friendly to play around with the GUI and explore the features.

I have been using Veracode for three months.

Veracode is stable but a bit slow.

I have only one experience with Veracode support, but it was very positive. I used the schedule consultation feature in the GUI, which was very useful. We had some questions about how to correctly upload a code, and I was able to schedule a call with a Veracode expert. The support person who helped me provided me with many insights, answered all of my questions, and even went beyond what I asked to explain how to use the feature and improve our process.

The initial deployment is complex because our system is huge, consisting of hundreds of different binaries. Dozens of teams contribute to the releases, and as a result, a large number of changes are deployed at the same time. This makes it very easy to break something, and there are many people involved in the process.

The deployment required a core team of five, with some additional people on hand to support if anything went wrong. The maximum time for deployment was one day.

I give Veracode a seven out of ten due to the slow speed and the false positives.

We only use Veracode for static analysis. We do not use the other features at all.

We have infrastructure deployed in multiple locations around the world. In my team, 50 people use Veracode. Across the entire organization, it is used by hundreds, if not thousands, of users.

I advise everyone to use Veracode in their development pipelines, so that scans can run very frequently, at least once during each nightly build. This will ensure that reports and flaws are addressed effectively. From my development perspective, I recommend against enforcing specific rules on using Veracode, giving deadlines to fix flaws, or introducing additional bureaucracy. This can worsen the developer experience and lead to developers finding ways to avoid having flaws reported, such as by decreasing the frequency of scans. In my opinion, the more processes and bureaucracy we add, the less useful Veracode will be.

We used Veracode for code scanning and source composition analysis.

Veracode can block vulnerable code from going into production.

The SBOM is a good option for companies that are asked about their SBOM.

The SBOM helps manage our risk.

Generating SBOM reports is not difficult, but setting up the necessary infrastructure for analysis takes time.

The policy reporting is incredibly robust.

Veracode provides visibility into application status in every phase of development.

The source composition analysis had very good reporting.

Veracode's long scan time for vulnerable code can hinder productivity. There is room for improvement in this area.

Veracode produced a lot of false positives.

Veracode's ability to fix flaws is less sophisticated than that of its competitors. For example, Veracode's static analysis scanning workflow for flaws is not as highly developed as Checkmarx's or Snyk's. Veracode would often provide incorrect sources and fail to identify the source of malicious user input coming to the team.

The process of bundling binaries or code for scanning could be improved.

I trialed Veracode for two weeks.

In our short trial period, we did experience some stability issues.

Veracode scales sufficiently.

I worked with Veracode's technical consultation staff and found the agent to be incredibly knowledgeable and sophisticated in their use of Veracode, as well as in vulnerable load patterns.

The deployment was complex.

Ten people were involved in the deployment.

We used the experience of engineers who had used Veracode in the past, as well as feedback from Veracode's engineers.

Veracode's pricing is competitive.

I believe Veracode would be willing to negotiate decent terms for organizations that are concerned about the pricing.

We also evaluated Checkmarx and Snyk, respectively. This puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of identifying execution paths and their ability to comprehensively show how vulnerable code is executed in our solution.

I would rate Veracode six out of ten.

Once Veracode is fully configured, the maintenance should be relatively minimal.

Veracode's best advantages are detailed reporting for industries such as government work, or other industries that may require exceptionally detailed reports or secure security verifications. However, I would suggest that people look out for the accuracy of results and the usefulness of findings on a large scale. Additionally, Veracode has a difficult-to-navigate user interface.

It is a broad and integrated platform. It provides multiple test scenarios and has the ability to do CI/CD pipeline integration. It is used for application security and vulnerability assessment.

Veracode provides guidance to develop secure software. It is one of the valuable features.

On-premise implementation is not available.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

It is stable.

The tool is scalable.

The technical support is good.

The product is deployed on the cloud. We have a multi-cloud environment.

The solution is expensive.

Veracode’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is good. The product's false-positive rate is low. If the tool is used effectively, vulnerable codes do not go into protection.

The SBOM feature helps identify risks in all third-party software. It is quite easy to create a report using the SBOM feature. It is an important feature. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. We have not integrated it.

Veracode has a good effect on our organization’s ability to fix flaws. Veracode has helped our developers save time. Veracode has a good impact on our organization’s overall security posture. The solution is probably not worth the money. The developers are more confident while fixing vulnerabilities due to the solution’s low false-positive rate.

Overall, I rate the tool a six out of ten.