Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform vs. Sonatype Platform

Excellent tool for identifying Cloud security issues such as vulnerabilities or misconfigurations. The complaince scanning ability is perfect for enterprise organization to maintain complaince based off various complaince programs.

Incentivized

For a medium to large size organization with the possibility to setup a central support team to support the governance, maintenance and implementation of the Sonatype Platform, the product suite from Sonatype is very well suited. Setting up detailed configurations requires quite some effort and deep understanding of the Sonatype Platform. Whenever needed the support teams from Sonatype are available for technical and functional support. As well the Innovate platform of Sonatype offers customers to interact on specific topics and set up customer reference calls.

• seamless integration with GitHub, Jfrog, etc
• Easy configuration of security policy
• detailed instructions regarding finding of Vulnerabilities

Incentivized

• Nexus firewall is a great feature enabled for all our proxy repositories which are used to download the third-party opensource packages.
• Nexus IQ is integrated with build stage to analyze the component against evaluation policy. This helps to figure out the application security standards.
• Nexus IQ is also having a feature to scan container images before it uploads to our private repository. This is great feature for container platforms.

• The UI/UX of the Aqua platform has several issues, especially with the sign up/in flow, authentication, alerts and display of results
• Missing a few prominent notification channels for alerts such as Datadog, Webhooks
• Lacks complete granularity in RBAC with the ability to set permissions based on the cloud
• Some parts of the cocumentation for connecting an Oracle Cloud account is not up to update or clear

Incentivized

• Recommendations for best Energy Consumption options based on existing BOM - e.g. replace component X with component Y to reduce CPU cycles.
• More specific recommendations regarding Open Source Licensing - not just saying "Copyleft" but the next level of analysis (it's difficult - but would save a lot of time)
• Provide specific component replacement options where no "next version" resolves a high severity vulnerability.

Incentivized

Sonatype supports more than 200 dev(s). It proves with the repository to store the artifacts. Allows for governance of open source software used by the different teams. It is used by security teams to scan for vulnerabilities in software(s) and in the deployed containers. It helps ensure code quality.

Incentivized

The UI and UX of the platform requires some work since the platform is not for all screen sizes and the experience with certain features such as authentication and creating alerts is not great. The session times out while performing an action and having to repeat the entire action once again, which is not a great experience. Adding notification channels while creating the alerts is not seamless. But the platform has good UX with some great documentation for integrations along with the ability to customise dashboards.

Incentivized

Monthly touchpoints with Sinisa has been very valuable.

Incentivized

Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform is easy to implement and manage compare the Dome9.

Incentivized

Out of other products we evaluated before choosing Sonatype, the later looked far more user friendly, easy to understand and work with. This was key for us, as the tool needs to be used by many engineers that don't have security as their main focus. Having a tool that is easy to understand and work with, makes the process of evaluating open source dependencies much easier and appealing for developers.

Incentivized

• ROI is high with our Aqua project.

Incentivized

• Sonatype's centralized management of artifacts have made it very easy for developers to share code in an efficient manner.
• Sonatype's low false positive rate has made it easier to convince developers to remediate vulnerabilities
• Sonatype's archaic architecture has made it more expensive to manage than it could be.