Acunetix by Invicti vs Veracode

• Fast.
• Easy-to-use.
• Great customer support.
• Reporting features.
• Supports importing state files from other popular application testing tools.
• Has other features built-in beyond just scanning for vulnerabilities.

Read full review

• The pipeline scan is a very fast way to scan code and inform developers if a new flaw is introduced by their pull requests.
• Upload & Scan provides an in-depth analysis of the codebase, which features like reporting being made easy.
• SCA Scans help us not only identify the vulnerabilities but also in helping fix them and in identifying if our application is using that part of the vulnerable library or not.
• Veracode is very easy to integrate into the CI/CD pipelines (especially Jenkins)

Read full review

• Does not support multiple endpoints well (e.g. apps and services that do not reside at the same URL).
• Has authentication problems with modern enterprise apps which involve a lot of redirects to unrelated endpoints, federated IDs, SSO, etc. This is related to the first point.
• The vulnerability detection capability is not as robust as Burp Suite Pro + extensions, Metasploit + auxiliary modules, Nmap + scripts, etc.

Read full review

• There is an initial overhead on generating the binary artefacts for scanning. The binaries need to be loaded with debug symbols for Veracode to be able to trace the defect back to the file and line number. This is relatively easy for modern programming languages (e.g. Java) with latest build tools (e.g. maven/gradle) but can be quite challenging for languages which are platform specific (C/C++) and have dated build systems (e.g. make).
• Entry Point Selection. After the binaries are uploaded for scanning, the Veracode platform analyses them (pre-scan) and provides a list of 'modules' to be selected for scanning. Only the points of entry of program execution need to be selected here, based on the application architecture. The 3rd party modules on which your code is dependent on need to be uploaded but not selected as entry points for execution. This typically needs some fine-tuning and teams take some iterations to optimise. This would need the product architect inputs which teams generally do not understand, as they treat scanning in general as a DevSecOps responsibility and only after scanning, the developers/architects pitch in. For Veracode, their inputs are needed even during the scanning, for the first few scans at least.
• This is a both a pro and con. Veracode does not give any option to customise the scanning rules or tweak what it is scanning for. This makes for a much simpler setup but also gives no scope for creating an application-specific scanning profile. For instance, if I do not want Veracode to look for SQL injection for whatever reason, or if I want Veracode to only look for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, I cannot configure.
• Long scan times, specifically for C/C++ based product/app scans. Some of the scans for enterprise scale product in C/C++ used to take quite many hours, and at times a couple of days. There have been improvements in this during the course of our 3 years of usage but in general, scans take a long time to complete.

Read full review

• Saved money compared to other commercial scanners, especially over the long run.
• Scan speed seems to be pretty good compared to some of the bulkier commercial products out there. However, that largely has to do with proper configuration.
• A downside is that is requires a bit of extra work just to get it set up to scan APIs, web services, etc.

Read full review

• As I already stated, the cost per application is very high which makes the use of Veracode too expensive for many of out applications.
• The analysis report is accepted by our clients as a proper SSAT report.
• Most of out competition does not perform any type of SSAT on the applications they create. This is something we offer and be the only one out there doing this type of testing.

Read full review