We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and Fortify Application Defender based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting."
"Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before."
"The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The administration in Checkmarx is very good."
"Vulnerability details is valuable."
"Apart from software scanning, software composition scanning is valuable."
"The product saves us cost and time."
"We are able to provide out customers with a secure application after development. They are no longer left wondering if they are vulnerable to different threats within the market following deployment."
"Its ability to find security defects is valuable."
"The most valuable features of Fortify Application Defender are the code packages that are default."
"Fortify Application Defender's most valuable features are machine learning algorithms, real-time remediation, and automatic vulnerability notifications."
"The most valuable feature is that it analyzes data in real-time."
"The information from Fortify Application Defender on how to fix and solve issues is very good compared to other solutions."
"I find the configuration of rules in Fortify Application Defender useful. Its integration is also easy."
"We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process."
"It is an expensive solution."
"You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not."
"The solution sometimes reports a false auditable code or false positive."
"I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced."
"We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code. The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything."
"Support for older compilers/IDEs is lacking."
"The false positive rate should be lower."
"The workbench is a little bit complex when you first start using it."
"I encountered many false positives for Python applications."
"The product should integrate industry-standard code review tools internally with its system. This would streamline the coding process, as developers wouldn't need multiple tools for code review and security checks. Many independent and open-source tools are available, from Apache to various libraries. Using multiple DevOps pipeline tools can slow the turnaround time."
"The licensing can be a little complex."
"Fortify Application Defender gives a lot of false positives."
"Fortify Application Defender could improve by supporting more code languages, such as GRAAS and Groovy."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify Application Defender is ranked 30th in Application Security Tools with 11 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify Application Defender is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify Application Defender writes "Useful for fast code review in devOps pipelines ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and SonarCloud, whereas Fortify Application Defender is most compared with Coverity, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, SonarQube, Qualys Web Application Scanning and Fortify on Demand. See our Checkmarx One vs. Fortify Application Defender report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools 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.
Fewer false positives with CX than Fortify. More integrated.
Looking at the Gartner report I would say that Checkmarx is way easier to set up (initial setup) compared to Micro Focus Fortify.
Also, the financial strength of the Micro Focus Fortify spin/merger is a concern so investments could be at risk.
The major difference is that Checkmarx scans the code without compiling the code. This has a great advantage as code building issues are eliminated,
scan time is very less and false positive is less to some extent. One more major this is Checkmarx learns as you eliminate false positives and does not show the same issue again. We can perform incremental scans on the codebase where the old issue is nicely marked as "Recurring" and new ones in Red as NEW. Checkmarx has a highly customizable filter creation where you can create a filter that can eliminate the common recurring issues in
scans. This feature is very flexible and you can write your own filters and also, write specific patterns that are found in manual review which is a
great help as coding styles differ form teams to teams.
Thanks a lot. Thank you for the information.