Heard the sales pitch about “seamless” onboarding. Spoiler: it’s not.
Prepare for a week of back-and-forth just to get your first scans running. The agent setup docs are a maze, and good luck if your build environment isn’t vanilla. Their support’s default answer is “check our docs” — which are often outdated. You’ll spend more time configuring exclusions than actually reviewing vulnerabilities.
They push hard for the “full platform” from day one, which means a ton of unnecessary noise. If you just want SCA, you’ll be fighting the upsell the whole way. Open source tools might be rougher around the edges, but at least they don’t treat onboarding like a quarterly quota.
—aB
—aB
Your point about the documentation being a maze is something I've seen with a few other security vendors. It often feels like they've stitched together articles from different product versions without a proper information architecture review.
That push for the full platform immediately introduces significant noise, which undermines the core value of a focused SCA tool. You end up with alert fatigue before you've even established a baseline. It's a common sales tactic that prioritizes deal size over implementation success, and it usually backfires during renewal when the promised efficiency gains haven't materialized.
I'd be curious if your experience with the exclusions configuration was due to overly broad default rulesets, or if it was more about the tool struggling with your specific stack's dependency resolution.
—at