We compared Fortify on Demand and SonarQube based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Fortify on Demand is praised for its robust security, comprehensive scanning capabilities, and prompt vulnerability reporting, with positive feedback on customer service and pricing. SonarQube stands out for its support for multiple languages, seamless integration, and comprehensive features, with exceptional customer service and positive feedback on pricing and ROI. Areas for improvement include enhancing performance and usability for Fortify on Demand, while SonarQube could focus on analysis speed, UI navigation, setup instructions, documentation, performance, and integration options.
Features: Fortify on Demand is highly appreciated for its robust security, comprehensive scanning capabilities, user-friendly interface, and timely vulnerability reporting. SonarQube stands out with its support for multiple languages, simplified design, integration with DevOps pipelines, and ability to detect vulnerabilities and code smells. Additionally, SonarQube offers configurability, flexibility, and a user-friendly interface.
Pricing and ROI: Fortify on Demand's users have found the setup costs to be manageable and appreciate the flexible licensing options. On the other hand, SonarQube's pricing is considered reasonable and competitive, and its setup cost is straightforward and easy. SonarQube also offers flexible licensing options to cater to different needs., Fortify on Demand users expressed satisfaction with the platform's effectiveness and value for their investment. SonarQube helped improve code quality, detect vulnerabilities, and ensure code compliance, resulting in cost savings and increased productivity.
Room for Improvement: Fortify on Demand could benefit from enhancements in performance, scanning capabilities, customization options, reporting features, and user interface. SonarQube should focus on improving analysis speed, user interface, setup instructions, documentation, performance, and integration options.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Fortify on Demand and SonarQube show that the duration required to establish a new tech solution can vary between users. While both products have similar timeframes mentioned by users, Fortify on Demand has a wider range of deployment and setup durations compared to SonarQube., Fortify on Demand's customer service is praised for its prompt and helpful assistance. Users appreciate the attentiveness and expertise of the support team. SonarQube also receives praise for its exceptional customer service and support, with users acknowledging the prompt and knowledgeable assistance provided. The support team is commended for their responsiveness and willingness to go above and beyond.
The summary above is based on 51 interviews we conducted recently with Fortify on Demand and SonarQube users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is the information it can provide. There is quite a lot of information. It can pinpoint right down to where the problem is, allowing you to know where to fix it. Overall the features are easy to use, you don't have to be a coder. You can be a manager, or in IT operations, et cetera, anyone can use it. It is quite a well-rounded functional solution."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"The licensing was good."
"t's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved."
"Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out."
"Fortify supports most languages. Other tools are limited to Java and other typical languages. IBM's solutions aren't flexible enough to support any language. Fortify also integrates with lots of tools because it has API support."
"What stands out to me is the user-friendliness of each feature."
"I like the by-default policies that are they, as they seem to cover most of what I need."
"I like that it helps us maintain our work quality and code security."
"Provides local scanning for developers."
"It is very good at identifying technical debt."
"The most valuable features are code scanning and Quality Gates."
"Integrate it into the developers' workbench so that they can bench check their code against what will be done in the server-based audit version."
"The most valuable features are the analysis and detection of issues within the application code."
"There are many options and examples available in the tool that help us fix the issues it shows us."
"They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it."
"Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify."
"This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect."
"The products must provide better integration with build tools."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"If you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time."
"The scanning part could be improved in SonarQube. We have used Coverity for scanning, and we have the critical issues reported by Coverity. When we used SonarQube for scanning and looked at the results, it seems that some of them have incorrect input. This part can be improved for C and C++ languages."
"I would like to see improvements in defining the quality sets of rules and the quality to ensure code with low-performance does not end up in production."
"The solution could improve by providing more advanced technologies."
"Technical support and the price could be better."
"SonarQube needs to improve its support model. They do not work 24/7, and they do not provide weekend support in case things go wrong. They only have a standard 8:00 am to 5:00 pm support model in which you have to raise a support ticket and wait. The support model is not effective for premium customers."
"SonarQube needs to improve its ease of use, integration with third-party platforms, and scalability."
"I would like to see dynamic code analysis in the next version of the software."
"Having performance regression would be a helpful add on or ability to be able to do during the scan."
Fortify on Demand is ranked 10th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews while SonarQube is ranked 1st in Application Security Tools with 110 reviews. Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0, while SonarQube is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonarQube writes "Easy to integrate and has a plug-in that supports both C and C++ languages". Fortify on Demand is most compared with Veracode, Checkmarx One, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk, whereas SonarQube is most compared with Checkmarx One, SonarCloud, Coverity, Veracode and Mend.io. See our Fortify on Demand vs. SonarQube report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Static Application Security Testing (SAST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.