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.

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.

Veracode is our primary tool for identifying and resolving security flaws in our web-based applications. When I started at Advantasure, I worked on a claims product, using the tool to remedy coding issues and identify high-risk security flaws. I did that for a while before transitioning to a role as an application security engineer. In this job, I don't fix any security flaws. I help operate the environment.

We have integrated Veracode with Jenkins so that we can automate building and scanning code. Jenkins uploads the build to Veracode for static and SCA scanning.

I'm working remotely through a VPN. When I log into Veracode, I check the various applications out to ensure everything's running. If we have any issues, I report them to the appropriate teams.

We are in the health insurance industry, so compliance with security and privacy regulations is essential. Veracode is the industry standard. We use Veracode when we do internal audits and that sort of thing. You won't be in business for long if you don't have an industry-standard static security tool.

I have only worked at this company for two years, so I can't comment on what it was like before I joined, but Veracode does a good overall job of interfacing with us and giving us advice about areas we can improve. The company has used Veracode for a while, so it's not about improving per se. It's about maintaining and learning to use the tool better or making better use of dynamic scans. Our security doesn't depend on one feature. We're implementing multiple features, such as static and dynamic scans.

Their policies are relatively helpful for compliance. The policy configuration tool works well. We try to use one policy to cover all our applications. Once we've configured the policy correctly, it does an excellent job of applying that to each application and ensuring compliance. Veracode provides good visibility, and the reports are integrated, so we get insight into each type of scan.

Veracode's false positive rate is decent overall. The biggest challenge isn't a C or C++ call, but it's tricky to follow the data flows when using a web interface. You get a few false positives every once in a while.

I always tell our developers to verify all false positives because Veracode cannot follow your code flow. It's up to the developer to follow the code flow and check whether it's a false positive. The initial report is an excellent place to start. I don't think the false positives affect developer confidence. I never hear anybody complain about false positives.

The biggest challenge isn't Veracode; it's getting our developers to be compliant. Our organization is undergoing some changes, and we must remind the developers to do their jobs. As an application security engineer, I struggle to get developers to do these tasks because they don't want to do them. At the end of the day, the false positive rate doesn't affect developer productivity.

Veracode doesn't really help developers save time because we're already a mature organization. Their support team has helped us optimize our scan configuration significantly. Regarding the regular developers' goals, we have existing documentation and hold meetings with them. They do support consultations when developers have an issue.

I like Veracode's static scanning and SCA. We use three static scans, software composition analysis, and dynamic scans. We haven't used dynamic scanning as much, but we're trying to integrate that into our environment more.

For the most part, we've had good luck with the static scans as well as the software composition analysis scans. Veracode does a decent job of catching most vulnerabilities from making it into production, but it doesn't catch everything.

I have a few pet peeves and minor areas of irritation. Their customer success team does an excellent job, but getting their internal engineering team to do things isn't easy. They seem to lack a focus on maintaining the solution and improving it in the next generation.

It's a common problem in the industry. Software developers are always thinking about the next big thing but lose sight of what's happening right now. If you have an idea for a feature request, you must submit it to be voted on by the Veracode community. I don't like this. No one will look at it unless enough people vote for it.

Another issue we have concerns entry points. You must select the entry points for a static scan of your stuff. However, you can fix this by having templates in Jenkins. Things can sometimes change, confusing Veracode. I want to lock those entry points in. Eventually, our DevOps team will create templates for everything. If I want a new template, I need to submit it to the community and get my peers to vote on it. It's a waste of time.

I have used Veracode for two years.

I've been impressed with Veracode's stability. The solution doesn't go down often. The dynamic scans went down the other day, but that was a problem with the infrastructure, and AWS rarely has outages. Overall, it's dependable.

We haven't had any scalability issues with our current scan volume, but we're a medium-usage client. We have more than 30 static scans and 12 to 15 dynamic scans and don't seem to have issues with performance.

I rate Veracode support 7.5 out of 10. Overall, our technical support is decent. You have to find someone who works well with you. My biggest challenge is dynamic scanning and getting up to speed on that. You must find out who's good and stick with them as much as you can.

Our ROI comes mainly in the form of compliance. We get a star rating when we're automated, and we need to maintain that. We currently have a fairly high rating, so it's not so much about gaining stars. We need to avoid losing them. By maintaining our high rating, we can also gain more clients.

Veracode is expensive, but other solutions cost as much, if not more. For example, Rapid7's dynamic scan tool was at least as expensive as Veracode, and Rapid7 wasn't willing to negotiate. We are a reasonably large user.

It's a fair price. If you're worried about getting your money's worth, you could ask Veracode for a trial license and compare it to other tools in terms of pricing versus features. That's how I would do it. It's crucial to do your homework. At this point, we're somewhat locked in and won't change unless we find something significantly cheaper or better.

The company looked at other options, and we try to do one-stop shopping when possible. We looked at other tools like Rapid7 but decided against doing a proof of concept because it doesn't offer static analysis. I don't think they could do software composition without static analysis.

We could use Rapid7 for dynamic scans, but then we would have issues with report integration. One of the primary reasons we use Veracode today is that they have solid support. They typically respond to almost any ticket within 24 hours. Veracode also does an excellent job of integrating its various tools for static scanning, dynamic scanning, etc.

At the end of the day, we stay with Veracode primarily because of the solution's integration. Our license is up this year, and we currently have no plans to seek out another vendor. We may consider switching next year.

I rate Veracode seven out of 10. Before you evaluate Veracode or any other solution, you need to sit down with other specialists and decision-makers to develop some criteria. See if Veracode will give you a free trial license, and start testing it out. You can also check Gartner.