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

SUSE NeuVector vs Veracode comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 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

SUSE NeuVector
Ranking in Container Security
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (20th)
Veracode
Ranking in Container Security
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (3rd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (3rd), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (2nd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SUSE NeuVector is 1.8%, down from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 2.6%, down from 3.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode2.6%
SUSE NeuVector1.8%
Other95.6%
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at ProQuanta
Performs well, multiple deployment methods, and helpful support
The scalability of the solution is highly commendable, making it a compelling reason to consider incorporating new features. Its ability to scale efficiently, coupled with its multitude of clusters, reinforces the need for exploring additional functionalities. Most of our clients are enterprise-level. I rate the scalability of SUSE NeuVector a nine out of ten.
reviewer2703864 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"It eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report."
"Compared to when we started versus now, we have done a phenomenal job, year on year our security debt has been continuously decreasing by 10 to 12 percent."
"Overall, it's really good."
"The most important features, I would say, are the scanning abilities and the remediation abilities within the product. Scanning because, obviously, we want to make sure that our application code is flaw-free. And the remediation tools are helpful to the developers to help them track and manage their flaws."
"I like the way the flaws are reported in the system."
"The most valuable feature of Veracode Static Analysis is the scanning."
"Veracode has helped with developer security training and helped build developer security skills."
"One benefit is that we have automated the scanning process."
 

Cons

"However, I found that the support in Egypt was not very qualified, and there was a need to upgrade to a higher support layer to solve my issues."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"Straightforward to set up, but the configuration of the rules engine is difficult and complicated."
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"Overall, I would rate Veracode as a five out of 10, because the functionality is there, but to me, the usability of the user interface is very important and it's still not there."
"I don't have the on-platform flexibility to sort and filter inspection data, and that's not good."
"CA still has some difficulties integrating the Veracode team in their support services."
"Veracode should include the feature to run multiple scales at a time."
"Veracode's container scanning could be improved. We containerize all the platforms we use inside a Docker image. For example, we create a Microsoft Docker image that we build our application on top of. I would like Veracode to implement IT scans before we commit the code."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
"The pricing is fair."
"Users in some forums mentioned that pricing for this solution can be quite high."
"Pricing/licensing is complicated."
"Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
"It can be expensive to do this, so I would just make sure that you're getting the proper number of licenses. Do your analysis. Make sure you know exactly what it is you need, going in."
"Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license."
"If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise45
Large Enterprise114
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features be...
What is your primary use case for NeuVector?
In my company, I am looking to deploy a container security runtime solution.
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 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.
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

NeuVector
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
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 SUSE NeuVector vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.