Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

DeepSource vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

DeepSource
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
43rd
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
12th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
2nd
Ranking in Static Code Analysis
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
196
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Container Security (4th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Penetration Testing Services (3rd), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of DeepSource is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 10.1%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

Use DeepSource?
Share your opinion
Sajal Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers shift-left security strategy and helps us with the latest security configurations, OWASP standards, and SAST standards
It's robustness is the main benefit to the organization. As it gets upgraded with time, it also improves the coverage – security configuration coverages and vulnerability coverages. It also updates itself with the latest known vulnerabilities that are uploaded to the NVD, OWASP, or other databases. So it gets upgraded itself with that. And so with each upgrade, it gets better and better. The solution offers the ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It provides us with a report containing multiple remediations and mitigations for each vulnerability. For example, if it finds a cross-site scripting vulnerability, it will also include references like CWE and CVE records, instructions on how to fix it, and the specific line of code or module where the vulnerability is present. This helps us fix the issues accordingly. I'm a penetration tester and DevSecOps engineer. I evaluate the findings, mark false positives, and manually exploit vulnerabilities if they exist. If we need further clarification, we raise a ticket with the Veracode team and get consultancy from them. We are a software development team. If we find a vulnerability, I exploit it and come back with the best possible mitigation, and the dev team fixes it. If we use Veracode Fix, it might use third-party implementations or make changes we aren't aware of. We need to be very aware of what our application is using internally. It should be known to us. As per my experience, the solution's policy reporting ensures compliance with industry standards. It comes with multiple features. I get the most out of it, and it's good. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. Like static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition, and manual penetration tests - throughout the SDLC We have a pipeline that I maintain. I use the Veracode API account and have integrated it with AWS and our Jenkins pipeline. We use Snyk for SCA and Veracode for SAST scanning. At the earliest stage of the build, the SAST scan runs along with the JS and PHP files. It provides us with reports, which are then handed over to the other tools we depend on. If I validate the report or check the Veracode dashboard and find vulnerabilities, I mark them as false positives or existing issues. We work on multiple projects, but the one I'm handling these days only uses Veracode for SAST. It's been about one and a half years since I've been working with Veracode and this project. It is quite impressive. There are some things Veracode cannot find, like code obfuscations inside the code and some insecure randoms. Sometimes, it misses those flaws. But overall, if I compare it with other tools, it is better. I will definitely recommend others to use this tool. We run the scan before each deployment. If the dev team builds a new module or something, we scan it along with all the files. If we find anything, we get it fixed. That's how it works. Veracode is quite important to the organization's shift-left security strategy because we make a scan for each deployment. Sometimes, if I think we need to perform a shift-left, I just make a scan before deployment and check for any misconfiguration or vulnerability in the code.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode?
The SAST and DAST modules are great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode?
The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions. However, the tool provides good vulnerability and database features. It is worth the money.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Static Application Security Testing (SAST). Updated: November 2024.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.