Head of Open Source Engineering and Technology at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-09-11T16:39:38Z
Sep 11, 2024
The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free. You have to pay for the features you need, which I think is fair. If you want to get value for free, you can do that. If you want things that aren't free, you pay for them. No one likes paying for these things, but that's what you must do if you want to use software instead.
FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it.
Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team.
Sr. Security Architect at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-09-27T04:10:00Z
Sep 27, 2020
FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top notch. It is very much a 'you get what you pay for' scenario. Regardless of the price I highly recommend FOSSA.
Manager of Open Source Program Office at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2020-09-15T11:13:00Z
Sep 15, 2020
Consider the cost of the product and what it provides in terms of your developers. We looked at the pricing schedule at the time, per developer seat and tried to understand what a developer was. The fixed seats didn't line up with what we thought actual usage could be. It's always a razor's edge when trying to convince upper management of the usefulness, while trying to justify the overall cost. When we evaluated our intended usage, we determined that our actual developer count was best represented by the number of developers that are making commits to projects being scanned by FOSSA during a 30-day window. Historically, how many developers have committed code to projects that are being tracked by FOSSA? We decided that those developers would need access to FOSSA, and we monitor for increases based on seasonality, as we hire or renew contractors, to determine what our average would be for licenses. Using this method we were able to determine the number of licenses we would need, and adjust later based on projections. We continually monitor our usage, which rises and falls periodically, but we average right about the number of actively, engaged developers we're licensed for. Being able to agree on something that can be calculated, that was backed by hard numbers, as opposed to just guessing how many developers would actually be engaged and using it, was something that management could get behind.
In terms of pricing, I thought FOSSA was reasonable but slightly more expensive than Flexera if I recall. You weren't having to do IT stuff yourself. I certainly think in terms of time saved, it was more than satisfactory.
I don't love the license model where FOSSA charges per engineer, given that we don't really have engineers who use FOSSA. The method that we pay by, the metering that they use, is based on a mode that doesn't make sense to us. We pay for some number of engineers. Well, only one engineer uses it, and we're not paying for one engineer, because that's not fair; we use it for dozens of projects. So the method by which it's determined what to pay doesn't make sense. The amount that we pay, we pay. We're okay with it. We've negotiated a price that works for both parties, so that's not an issue.
Up to 90% of any piece of software is from open source, creating countless dependencies and areas of risk to manage. FOSSA is the most reliable automated policy engine for legal teams to maintain license compliance, security to fix vulnerabilities, and engineering to improve code quality across the entire software supply chain. As the only developer-native open source management platform, FOSSA fully integrates with your existing CI/CD pipeline to provide complete visibility and context...
The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free. You have to pay for the features you need, which I think is fair. If you want to get value for free, you can do that. If you want things that aren't free, you pay for them. No one likes paying for these things, but that's what you must do if you want to use software instead.
FOSSA is a fairly priced product. It is not either cheaper or expensive. The pricing lies somewhere in the middle. The solution is worth the money that we are spending to use it.
Its price is reasonable as compared to the market. It is competitively priced in comparison to other similar solutions on the market. It is also quite affordable in terms of the value that it delivers as compared to its alternative of hiring a team.
FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top notch. It is very much a 'you get what you pay for' scenario. Regardless of the price I highly recommend FOSSA.
Consider the cost of the product and what it provides in terms of your developers. We looked at the pricing schedule at the time, per developer seat and tried to understand what a developer was. The fixed seats didn't line up with what we thought actual usage could be. It's always a razor's edge when trying to convince upper management of the usefulness, while trying to justify the overall cost. When we evaluated our intended usage, we determined that our actual developer count was best represented by the number of developers that are making commits to projects being scanned by FOSSA during a 30-day window. Historically, how many developers have committed code to projects that are being tracked by FOSSA? We decided that those developers would need access to FOSSA, and we monitor for increases based on seasonality, as we hire or renew contractors, to determine what our average would be for licenses. Using this method we were able to determine the number of licenses we would need, and adjust later based on projections. We continually monitor our usage, which rises and falls periodically, but we average right about the number of actively, engaged developers we're licensed for. Being able to agree on something that can be calculated, that was backed by hard numbers, as opposed to just guessing how many developers would actually be engaged and using it, was something that management could get behind.
In terms of pricing, I thought FOSSA was reasonable but slightly more expensive than Flexera if I recall. You weren't having to do IT stuff yourself. I certainly think in terms of time saved, it was more than satisfactory.
I don't love the license model where FOSSA charges per engineer, given that we don't really have engineers who use FOSSA. The method that we pay by, the metering that they use, is based on a mode that doesn't make sense to us. We pay for some number of engineers. Well, only one engineer uses it, and we're not paying for one engineer, because that's not fair; we use it for dozens of projects. So the method by which it's determined what to pay doesn't make sense. The amount that we pay, we pay. We're okay with it. We've negotiated a price that works for both parties, so that's not an issue.
Pricing is competitive with some of the other bigger companies, but probably overall middle of the road. We haven't encountered additional costs.