Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs Veracode comparison

The compared Black Duck and Veracode solutions aren't in the same category. Black Duck is ranked #4 in FTT , and holds a 18.3% mindshare in the category. Veracode is ranked #3 in AS , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 4.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Black Duck users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Veracode users who would recommend it.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Read 4 Defensics Protocol Fuzzing reviews

1,211 Views
121 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Veracode

Read 208 Veracode reviews

18,975 Views
11,765 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Veracode

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Defensics Protocol Fuzzing and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about PortSwigger, GitLab, OWASP and others in Fuzz Testing Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Average Rating

8.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)

Veracode

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Container Security (8th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 18.3%, down 21.0% compared to last year.
Veracode, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 4.9% mindshare, down 10.4% since last year.

Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing	18.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional	32.7%
GitLab	26.7%
Other	22.299999999999997%

Fuzz Testing Tools

Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Veracode	4.9%
SonarQube	16.9%
Checkmarx One	9.9%
Other	68.30000000000001%

Application Security Tools

Featured Reviews

Sarath Kumar Choday

Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies

Product security tests for switches and router sections

Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.

Read full review

reviewer2703864

Head of Security Architecture at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees

Onboarding developers successfully while improving code security through IDE integration

Regarding room for improvement, we have some problems when onboarding new projects because the build process has to be done in a certain way, as Veracode analyzes the binaries and not the code by itself alone. If the process is not configured correctly, it doesn't work. That's one of the things that we are discussing with Veracode. Something positive that we've been able to do is submit formal feature requests to them, and they are working on them; they've already solved some of them. This encourages us to propose new ideas and improvements. Another improvement that we asked for this use case is to be able to configure how Veracode Fix proposes and fixes because sometimes it makes proposals using libraries that go against our architecture design made by the enterprise architecture team. For example, we want them to propose using another library, and that's something we already asked Veracode, and they are working on it. We want to specify when you see this kind of vulnerability, you can only propose these two options.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."

"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."

"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."

"Veracode enables us to build a strong data security layer in our platforms. We can increase customer confidence in data security. Some PCI/HIPAA compliance issues were impossible to resolve without Veracode."

"The most valuable feature is the seamless automation of Veracode via the pipeline, in comparison to other solutions like Fortify SSC, which are complex to integrate through the pipeline."

"The static scan is the feature that we use the most, as it gives us insight into our source code. We have it integrated with our continuous integration, continuous delivery system, so we can get insight quickly."

"I have found the user interface extremely helpful in prioritizing issues."

"It's hard to say that any single feature is the most essential. There are many errors and vulnerabilities in software today in the standard libraries for different vendors because. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time because we're using standard libraries, and it's important to know that your security isn't compromised because you are using libraries with vulnerabilities."

"One of the valuable features is that it gives us the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important."

"The solution is stable. we've never had any issues surrounding its stability."

"All the features provided by Veracode are valuable, including static scan, dynamic scan, and MPT (Manual Penetration Testing)."

More Veracode pros

Cons

"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."

"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."

"It needs better APIs, reporting that I can easily query through the APIs and, preferably, a license model that I can predict."

"From the usability perspective, it is not up to date with the latest trends. It looks very old. Tools such as Datadog, New Relic, or infrastructure security tools, such as AWS Cloud, seem very user-friendly. They are completely web-based, and you can navigate through them pretty quickly, whereas Veracode is very rigid. It is like an old-school enterprise application. It does the job, but they need to invest a little more on the usability front."

"Improvements can be made to Veracode, particularly in terms of process. If it could be integrated directly with code repositories such as Bitbucket or GitHub, without the need to create a pipeline to upload and decode code, it would simplify the code scan process significantly."

"Calypso (our application) is large and the results take up to two months. Further, we also have to package Calypso in a special manner to meet size guidelines."

"I would like to see improvement on the analytics side, and in integrations with different tools. Also, the dynamic scanning takes time."

"The technical support service has room for improvement."

"Once your report has been generated, you need to review the report with consultation team, especially if it is too detailed on the development side or regarding the language. Then, you need some professional help from their end to help you understand whatever has been identified. Scheduling consultation takes a longer time. So, if you are running multiple reports at the same time, then you need to schedule a multiple consultation times with one of their developers. There are few developers on their end who work can work with your developers, and their schedules are very tight."

"When we scan binary, when we perform binary analysis, it could go faster. That has a lot to do with the essence of scanning binary code, it takes a little bit longer. Certain aspects, depending on what type of code it is, take a little long, especially legacy code."

More Veracode cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."

"The cost of Veracode is high."

"It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better."

"We use this product per project rather than per developer... Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive."

"The licensing and prices were upfront and clear. They stand behind everything that is said during the commercial phase and during the onboarding phase. Even the most irrelevant "that can be done" was delivered, no matter how important the request was."

"Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier."

"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."

"The pricing of the product depends upon the number of codes or the number of applications."

"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is expensive. There is an annual fee to use the solution and the company is upfront with the pricing model and fees."

More Veracode pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

17%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	69
Midsize Enterprise	44
Large Enterprise	115

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Veracode Static Analysis?

I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode Static Analysis?

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Veracode is that it is fairly moderate.

See all answers

Comparisons

SonarQube vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

Coverity Static vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 11% of the time

HCL AppScan vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 10% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 8% of the time

Invicti vs Defensics Protocol Fuzzing

Compared 5% of the time

More Defensics Protocol Fuzzing Competitors

SonarQube vs Veracode

Compared 11% of the time

Checkmarx One vs Veracode

Compared 8% of the time

GitHub Advanced Security vs Veracode

Compared 5% of the time

OWASP Zap vs Veracode

Compared 3% of the time

Coverity Static vs Veracode

Compared 3% of the time

More Veracode Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional

January 2026

Download Defensics Protocol Fuzzing product report

Buyer's Guide

Veracode

January 2026

Download Veracode product report

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics

Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect

Overview

Defensics® fuzz testing is a comprehensive, powerful, and automated black box solution that enables organizations to effectively and efficiently discover and remediate security weaknesses in software. By taking a systematic and intelligent approach to negative testing, Defensics allows organizations to ensure software security without compromising on product innovation, increasing time to market, or inflating operational costs.

Black Duck

Veracode is a leading provider of application security solutions, offering tools to identify, mitigate, and prevent vulnerabilities across the software development lifecycle. Its cloud-based platform integrates security into DevOps workflows, helping organizations ensure that their code remains secure and compliant with industry standards.

Veracode supports multiple application security testing types, including static analysis (SAST), dynamic analysis (DAST), software composition analysis (SCA), and manual penetration testing. These tools are designed to help developers detect vulnerabilities early in development while maintaining speed in deployment. Veracode also emphasizes scalability, offering features for enterprises that manage a large number of applications across different teams. Its robust reporting and analytics capabilities allow organizations to continuously monitor their security posture and track progress toward remediation.

What are the key features of Veracode?

Static Analysis (SAST) - Scans source code for vulnerabilities before deployment.
Dynamic Analysis (DAST) - Examines applications in a running state to detect flaws in real-time.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) - Identifies risks in open-source libraries and third-party components.
Manual Penetration Testing - Offers expert analysis for more complex vulnerabilities.
Integrations with DevOps tools - Seamlessly integrates with CI/CD pipelines for automated security checks.

What benefits should users consider in Veracode reviews?

Early detection of vulnerabilities - Helps developers fix security issues early in the development process.
Scalability - Supports organizations with large-scale application portfolios.
Compliance support - Ensures applications meet various security standards and regulations.
Developer training - Provides tools for educating developers on secure coding practices.
Comprehensive reporting - Offers detailed reports that track remediation and risk trends.

Veracode is widely adopted in industries like finance, healthcare, and government, where compliance and security are critical. It helps these organizations maintain strict security standards while enabling rapid development through its integration with Agile and DevOps methodologies.

Veracode helps businesses secure their applications efficiently, ensuring they can deliver safe and compliant software at scale.

Veracode

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks

Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.

We monitor all Fuzz Testing 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.