We performed a comparison between Polyspace Code Prover and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The most important feature is the static scanning analysis, and the reason is that it can tell us vulnerability in that code, right before we go ahead and push something to production or provide something to a client... Dynamic scanning actually hits our Web applications, to try to detect any well known Web application vulnerabilities as well."
"There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode."
"I appreciate the integration provided by Veracode that seamlessly integrates with our CI/CD tools and allows us to integrate with IPA as well."
"Code scanning is the most valuable feature."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely. By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability."
"I like the sandbox, the ability to upload compiled code, and how easy it is."
"For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"I would love to be able to do a dynamic sandbox scan. I think that that would allow us to really get a lot more buy-in from the software development teams."
"The results of agent-based software composition analysis are not connected to policy scanning. So, for me, the only thing that Veracode can improve in Software Composition Analysis is to connect it with the policy scan because, at present, it is a bit inconvenient for those in our organization who use agent-based Software Composition Analysis. In the end, they need to make a static scan with all those libraries in order to receive that report. If Veracode implemented a connection between agent-based static scan and static scanning itself, it would be great because it would lead to fewer operations in order to prepare release documentation and release reporting from Veracode. We recently had a conversation with Veracode about it."
"There are times when certain modules cannot be scanned automatically, requiring us to manually select these modules and initiate the scanning process on our side."
"The interface is basic and has room for improvement."
"Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."
"I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing."
"When we engaged Veracode to conduct the manual penetration testing, they were extremely slow in completing the task and delivering the report, causing a delay of two to three weeks for us."
"Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives."
Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews while Veracode is ranked 2nd in Application Security Tools with 194 reviews. Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and Fortify on Demand, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Fortify Static Code Analyzer. See our Polyspace Code Prover vs. Veracode report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
