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)
11th
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 (13th), Static Code Analysis (1st), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Software Composition Analysis (SCA) category, the mindshare of FOSSA is 2.3%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 6.0%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Composition Analysis (SCA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Veracode6.0%
FOSSA2.3%
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."
"What I really need from FOSSA, and it does a really good job of this, is to flag me when there are particular open source licenses that cause me or our legal department concern. It points out where a particular issue is, where it comes from, and the chain that brought it in, which is the most important part to me."
"Overall, it's a great product."
"FOSSA is at the heart of the license compliance part of our open-source management program."
"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 allows us to keep track of all dependencies to ensure they are up to date and not causing any vulnerabilities."
"Their CLI tool is very efficient. It does not send your source code over to their servers. It just does fingerprinting. It is also very easy to integrate into software development practices."
"FOSSA is not cheap, but their offering is top-notch."
"Veracode allows us to easily summarize issues and provide quick, actionable insights."
"We have to look at it from the perspectives of how important it is to fix something and when it should be prioritized for fixing. The JSON output from the agent-based scans gives us the CVS core, and that makes things much easier."
"There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode."
"We were able to easily integrate static code testing into the SDLC process."
"The most valuable feature is Veracode SDP, which allows for something related to third-party vulnerabilities. When we build a product, we use a lot of third-party libraries instead of building everything from scratch. We just use a library which is already been built; we just use that component in our product. Sometimes, these libraries may have bugs or issues, and it's hard to keep track of them because we use thousands of them."
"For our customers, they know that we go through another level of application security with our application, one our competitors don't use."
"They actually help you every single step of the way and they want to show you how to do it."
"That it is a cloud-based solution is very valuable to us. We don't need that hardware running our scans and hosting the environment to be scanned. Also, the technology, the static scanning versus dynamic scanning produces a much better result, a more accurate result."
 

Cons

"FOSSA does not show the exact line of code with vulnerabilities, which adds time to the process as we have to locate these manually."
"I would like more customized categories because our company is so big. This is doable for them. They are still in the stages of trying to figure this out since we are one of their biggest companies that they support."
"While running a FOSSA scan, it takes time for the results to reflect in the FOSSA UI portal."
"I would like more customized categories because our company is so big."
"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."
"I wish there was a way that you could have a more global rollout of it, instead of having to do it in each repository individually. It's possible, that's something that is offered now, or maybe if you were using the CI Jenkins, you'd be able to do that. But with Travis, there wasn't an easy way to do that. At least not that I could find. That was probably the biggest issue."
"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."
"We have seen some inaccuracies or incompleteness with the distribution acknowledgments for an application, so there's certainly some room for improvement there. Another big feature that's missing that should be introduced is snippet matching, meaning, not just matching an entire component, but matching a snippet of code that had been for another project and put in different files that one of our developers may have created."
"Sometimes, the scans halt or drop for some reason, and we need to get help from Veracode to fix it."
"The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives."
"I wouldn't promote Veracode because it's not automated enough, and it has many configuration issues."
"Its cost and the long scanning times for large applications are the areas for improvement."
"Veracode can be improved with more integrations, more automations, enhanced API features, and more advanced analytics."
"The user interface could be more sleek. Some scanning requirements aren't flexible. Some features take some time for new users to understand (like what exactly "modules" are)."
"The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity."
"Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 solution's cost is a five out of ten."
"The solution's pricing is good and reasonable because you can literally use a lot of it for free."
"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."
"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."
"The cost of scanning code is cheaper. It's typically $0.50 per line of code. However, it's expensive to run a high-level process that would normally require a human security expert. For example, penetration testing costs about $1,000 per application for penetration testing. The cost of these features may be too high for smaller organizations. On the other hand, Veracode's interactive application security testing is fast and cheaper compared to other software."
"Licensing cost is on a yearly basis and there are no additional costs, the pricing is straightforward."
"The pricing is pretty high."
"It's very expensive, especially when you are a very small organization. If you're using Veracode at an individual level, for example, you're a developer or you run agents, the pricing might not affect you, but if you're using it at a company level to troubleshoot security issues, the pricing is not quite favorable. It may affect ROI."
"The pricing for Veracode is high, making it difficult for beginners to afford."
"I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms."
"The price of Veracode Static Analysis is on the higher side."
"I wouldn't really recommend Veracode for a small firm, because it might be a little pricey for them. But for a large organization, with more than 1,000 applications in the enterprise, there are tiered levels of pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Composition Analysis (SCA) solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Outsourcing Company
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.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.