No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

FOSSA vs Veracode comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 5, 2024

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

FOSSA
Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
19th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Veracode
Ranking in Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
2nd
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) (3rd), Container Security (14th), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Software Composition Analysis (SCA) category, the mindshare of FOSSA is 2.2%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 6.1%, down from 8.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode6.1%
FOSSA2.2%
Other91.7%
Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2588340 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Dependency management enhanced with update suggestions but lacks precise vulnerability tracking
FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact line numbers for bugs. Also, the process in FOSSA can be quite contradicting and not very straightforward for new users.
YS
Software Development Engineer II at Rocket Software
Monthly scans have provided baseline security but still miss critical vulnerabilities
Veracode can improve to stand in this market. They do not have to do much; they just need to improve their UI experience and add more documentation within the application rather than just creating documentation pages on different websites. They need to ensure their web application guides whoever uses it. Since whoever uses Veracode must be a technical person, they just need to guide them to the actual points. They can also improve their security capabilities by adding more filters to identify what vulnerabilities their application has. They need to improve their scanning engine to scan for more critical defects. Also, the integration part can be enhanced by adding features to integrate with a CLI, such as introducing a CLI version or a Jenkins plugin. If such features exist, they should show it as a pop-up, signaling that they have a new feature. Currently, it feels Veracode from two years ago is still the same, so that is something Veracode needs to improve. They can improve the security part. Some of the severe security issues were never caught by Veracode in the reports. In fact, I have never seen any high or critical severity issues pop up in my Veracode report. That is one thing they can improve on their scanning ability to catch high severity issues. Next is integration; Veracode does not provide any tools to integrate with Jenkins or CLI. I do not even know if there is any CLI for Veracode that I can use to automate in my pipeline. The last thing is the UI interface that they have, as it is a bit confusing. I remember we did not have the capability to handle authentications of our internal application. We had to write Selenium code using a Selenium IDE. To write a Selenium script for a Veracode scan, you have to download a Selenium IDE, record it, and then paste that file into Veracode. I can see that Selenium IDE is already decommissioned, so it is no longer used by anyone. Still, we have to use it because Veracode only supports that kind of file for Selenium to automate. They can add more ways to authenticate our application using normal JavaScript or Python or Shell script. I feel these are the four main points. They can document it more by adding tooltips into the application that explain why a parameter is required and what other options are available. For the same example with the Selenium script, they can add a link to their documentation that explains what other kinds of scripts can be written for authentication. I feel they can also make the UI more intuitive so that whoever uses it can guide themselves, as whoever uses Veracode is already a technical person.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I am impressed with the tool’s seamless integration and quick results."
"Having it as a resource to very quickly triage incredibly high volumes of open-source coming into the company through agile development programs was invaluable."
"FOSSA provided us with contextualized, easily actionable intelligence that alerted us to compliance issues. I could tell FOSSA exactly what I cared about and they would tell me when something was out of policy. I don't want to hear from the compliance tool unless I have an issue that I need to deal with. That was what was great about FOSSA is that it was basically "Here's my policy and only send me an alert if there's something without a policy." I thought that it was really good at doing that."
"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch."
"Overall, it's a great product."
"It improves productivity, saving a lot of time for our software developers."
"It reduced the duration and the effort required to identify open-source licensing issues."
"Policies and identification of open-source licensing issues are the most valuable features. It reduces the time needed to identify open-source software licensing issues."
"Right now, I couldn't ask another thing from them."
"The coding standards in our development group have improved. From scanning our code we've learned the patterns and techniques to make our code more secure. An example would be SQL injection. We have mitigated all the SQL injection in our applications."
"It pointed out some areas to be improved that we were not aware of, which was very helpful because if you don't know that there is a problem, you can't fix it."
"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."
"Stable and scalable, with good reporting features. Helps in detecting and managing vulnerabilities and risks."
"Veracode is a very good tool, especially from a compliance standpoint."
"Within SCA, there is an extremely valuable feature called vulnerable methods. It is able to determine within a vulnerable library which methods are vulnerable. That is very valuable, because in the vast majority of cases where a library is vulnerable, none of the vulnerable methods are actually used by the code. So, if we want to prioritize the way open source libraries are updated when a library is found vulnerable, then we want to prioritize the libraries which have vulnerable methods used within the code."
"The integration capabilities with our existing development tools are very good."
 

Cons

"On the dashboard, there should be an option to increase the column width so that we can see the complete name of the GitHub repository. Currently, on the dashboard, we see the list of projects, but to see the complete name, you have to hover your mouse over an item, which is annoying."
"FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually."
"The reports don't really work that well for us. They do provide good information but they perform poorly with either the number of projects, or components, in the system."
"For open-source management, FOSSA's out-of-the-box policy engine is easy to use, but the list of licenses is not as complete as we would like it to be. They should add more open-source licenses to the selection."
"One thing that can sometimes be difficult with FOSSA is understanding all that it can do."
"I would like the FOSSA API to be broader. I would like not to have to interact with the GUI at all, to do the work that I want to do. I would like them to do API-first development, rather than a focus on the GUI."
"Security scanning is an area for improvement. At this point, our experience is that we're only scanning for license information in components, and we're not scanning for security vulnerability information. We don't have access to that data. We use other tools for that. It would be an improvement for us to use one tool instead of two, so that we just have to go through one process instead of two."
"The solution provides contextualized, actionable, intelligence that alerts us to compliance issues, but there is still a little bit of work to be done on it. One of the issues that I have raised with FOSSA is that when it identifies an issue that is an error, why is it in error? What detail can they give to me? They've improved, but that still needs some work. They could provide more information that helps me to identify the dependencies and then figure out where they originated from."
"The overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report."
"Their scanning engine is sometimes a little bit slow. They can improve the scan time."
"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."
"Static scanning takes a long time, so you need to patiently wait for the scan to achieve. I also think the software could be more accurate. It isn't 100 percent, so you shouldn't completely rely on Veracode. You need to manually verify its findings."
"Technical support was difficult at times due to off-shore support that seemed to be reading from a script and not really understanding our issue."
"I'd like to see an improved component of it work in a DevOps world, where the scanning speed does not impede progress along the AppSec pipeline."
"Their platform is not consistent. It needs a lot of user experience updates. It's slow performing, and they log you out of the system every 15 minutes, so using the platform is challenging from a developer's perspective because you always have to log in."
"The Veracode platform probably hasn't improved our organization overall, although through no fault of theirs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's cost is a five out of ten."
"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."
"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."
"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."
"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."
"Regarding licensing, pay very close attention to what applications you're going to need to do dynamic scanning for, versus static. Right now, the way the licensing is set up, if you don't have any static elements for a website, you can certainly avoid some costs by doing more dynamic licenses. You need to pay very close attention to that, because if you find out later that you have static code elements - like Java scripts, etc. - that you want to have scanned statically, having the two licenses bundled together will actually save you money."
"I don't have firsthand knowledge of Veracode pricing, but based on client feedback, it seems to be expensive with additional fees for certain features."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
"The pricing and licensing are reasonable, and relatively straightforward, and different licensing and subscription models are available."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"I know that Veracode is a semi-pricey solution. If you are serious about security, I would recommend that you use an open-source option to learn how the scanning process works and then look into Veracode if you want to really step up your game and have an all-in-one solution."
"The pricing is a bit high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
7%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business70
Midsize Enterprise46
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with FOSSA?
FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually. Some other tools like Check Point or SonarQube provide exact lin...
What is your primary use case for FOSSA?
I have worked with FOSSA primarily to manage the dependencies in our projects. For example, if I take a Spring Boot application, FOSSA helps in identifying mismatches or unsupported dependencies th...
What advice do you have for others considering FOSSA?
For those seeking to ensure their application is updated with the latest features, FOSSA can be a beneficial add-on. However, it should not replace your existing primary security solutions such as ...
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 is the biggest difference between Veracode and Checkmarx?
According to my experience of using both the tools in different organizations Veracode is a Cloud-native, managed AppSec platform with strong focus on ease of use, it is SaaS delivery, and provide...
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AppDyanmic, Uber, Twitter, Zendesk, Confluent
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 FOSSA vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.