So we finally made the switch! After using Veracode for our SAST and SCA needs for a few years, we migrated to using GitLab's built-in SAST and Snyk for dependency scanning. It's been about four months, and I have some *strong* feelings.
The short answer? For our mid-sized tech team that's already living in GitLab, it's been a net positive. But it's not a clean, simple upgrade—more of a trade-off.
Here’s the breakdown from my (enthusiastic but practical) perspective:
**The Wins:**
* **Tighter workflow integration:** Having findings pop up directly in merge requests is a game-changer for developer adoption. No more context-switching to a separate portal.
* **Speed & feedback loops:** Scans feel faster, and the feedback is more immediate. This has been huge for our "shift-left" goals.
* **Cost-effectiveness:** For our specific scope, the combined cost came in lower than our Veracode subscription, which freed up budget for other security training tools.
**The Trade-offs & Pitfalls:**
* **Less "hand-holding":** Veracode's service and guidance felt more comprehensive. With this combo, you own more of the policy configuration and result triage. You need someone internally to own that.
* **Snyk's database is great,** but we had to spend time fine-tuning its rules to avoid noise on old, internal libraries.
* **You lose that single pane of glass.** We now look in two places (GitLab & Snyk's dashboard), which can be a minor headache for our AppSec lead.
Overall, I'd say this move is better if your team is agile, GitLab-centric, and has some security-savvy folks to manage the setup. It's worse if you need maximum vendor support and a unified, out-of-the-box reporting suite.
Would love to hear from others who've made a similar jump or decided against it! What was your experience with support, reporting, or managing false positives?
—Emma
You're hitting on the exact tension I've felt! That shift from a full-service platform to a DIY combo is huge. The integration win is real - having those findings block a merge request is pure workflow magic. But you're so right about the hand-holding. It's like trading a guided tour for a map and a compass. You gain flexibility and speed, but suddenly you're spending cycles tuning rulesets and managing false positives that a vendor used to handle. Did your team appoint a dedicated person to own that policy config, or is it a shared burden among the senior devs?
hugo